/liberty/ - Liberty

>b-but free markets will cause m-m-monopolies.

Before you socialist fuckstains spout off that argument again how about you actually provide us an actual example of a monopoly occurring in a free market environment and one that was not propped up by a government or by government regulation.

As for environmental concerns. A libertarian society will not guarantee complete protection of the environment, but a libertarian society that respects and acknowledges property rights can go a long way to protect a good chunk of it.

>If you're so confident that environmental destruction and economic monopolization will not happen under a libertarian society, then why not prohibit these things in law with the intention that they may never be used?

Because that's not necessary. If you ever create nanomachines that eat up all vegetation and turn it into radioactive dust, you'll be guilty of so many charges that stacking "killing a fucking plant no one cares about" would just be overkill.

>Why not prohibit these things in law that they may never be used?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Are suggesting outlawing something but never expecting someone to actually break that law? Because that sounds fucking retarded.

>>10882

How about you stop begging the question.

>>10883

"Some ugly plant" could end up being essential to civilisation. This has happened numerous times in history; grains, sugar cane, rubber plant, and so on. To permit extinction because plebs want to raise cattle is (as capitalism is, "per usual") ignorant of the larger picture.

>>10885

The same private security companies who you presumably pay to investigate murder cases and other shit that's still illegal in a libertarian society.

>>10887

>How about you stop begging the question.

How exactly is this a case of begging the question?

>"Some ugly plant" could end up being essential to civilisation. This has happened numerous times in history; grains, sugar cane, rubber plant, and so on. To permit extinction because plebs want to raise cattle is (as capitalism is, "per usual") ignorant of the larger picture.

EVERYTHING could prove useful at a later time. Some people have taken this view to the extreme; we call them hoarders.

>The same private security companies who you presumably pay to investigate murder cases and other shit that's still illegal in a libertarian society.

You don't seem to know how this works. In a libertarian society, the companies would not enact the law, they would merely enforce it, and they'd have exactly the same authority as every random civilian on the street.

To enforce environmental policies, these policies would need to exist, and good luck coming up with a theory of natural environmental law that's not full of arbitrary bullshit. It's easy to say what constitutes trespassing, homicide or assault; good luck with coming up with a clear-cut definition of intolerable environmental destruction. The "intolerable" part is important, because no one in his right mind would outlaw all kinds of environmental damage. Instead, you'd have to take the pros and cons of cutting a tree down into the equation, and once you start doing that, you either end up with case law, or - if the courts can't find an agreement on the issue, or the issue is a new one - with arbitrariness. It's like that in modern legal systems and it would be even worse if there were twenty courts in charge of making this arbitrary decision.

Once higher environmental standards are introduced in a country, larger multinational firms present in the country are likely to push for enforcement so as to reduce the cost advantage of smaller local firms.

>>10881

>environmental destruction

Destructon of the environment (like you throw up coal particles that land on my laundry) is destruction of property, the US court USED to consider these cases seriously, but during times of duress the court just said

>lol fuck yur property rights we are at war xddd

>economic monopolization

All monopolies face implicit competition, the instant a monopoly abuses its privilege competition will start up, at which point the monopoly stands to face a large part of its market share if it doesn't behave reasonably.

Most monopolies are created by government, like the NFL, or ISPs which require shit loads of government permissions, specifically local.

>why not prohibit these things in law with the intention that they may never be used?

Destruction of your property will be prohibited, accumulation of property by one corporation will not be, just because you're a beta leftist doesn't mean it's a moral crime for a businessman to work with other businessmen or to buy up other companies.

>>10887

>How about you stop begging the question [about monopolies]

How about you provide some empirical evidence the free market causes monopolies, instead of just asserting it because all the leftist cunts you hang around take it for granted?

>The same private security companies who you presumably pay to investigate murder cases and other shit that's still illegal in a libertarian society.

KEK, brilliant

>Security company operating in town of 10,000 people

>Hey, Standard Oil, you're pure evil, you can't operate here!

>Every person who needs gas gets pissed off and stops paying for the security company

>New company that doesn't try to have moral crusades against non-abusive businesses replaces it

Free market will not allow for such a stupid idea as private security companies telling another business it's not allowed to have that much market share, because 30% market shrae is okay, but 40% is PURE EBUL!

>declare it a foregone conclusion that somehow more liberal rules will lead to better environmentalism.

vid related

>>10881

Why not just tell the govt to fuck right hte hell off and let me do my own business.

>>10905

>the instant a monopoly abuses its privilege competition will start up

prove this please

>How about you provide some empirical evidence the free market causes monopolies, instead of just asserting it because all the leftist cunts you hang around take it for granted?

We're back to the "true free marketry has never existed" argument. And I don't want to have that argument. We've had it before.

The premise (and this is why I said you were begging the question) was this:

Let's say that you're right. Let's say that monopolization won't work under a libertarian society. Would it not be the case therefore, that laws prohibiting monopolization would only ever need to be invoked when a company owns over 90% of the market share, and that therefore, if you're right, then the law need never be used in theory? Which means that the law in theory is win-win. If you're right, you're right. If you're wrong, you have a backup procedure.

>Free market will not allow for such a stupid idea as private security companies telling another business it's not allowed to have that much market share, because 30% market shrae is okay, but 40% is PURE EBUL!

Yeah well I can strawman u 2 m8.

>vid related

Seen it. Such a lazy method of environmentalism where you only give a shit because it turns more profit would have everywhere destroyed except for the largest of ecotourist cash cows. Of course people will save the elephants. But what about the species that aren't charismatic?

Everything that's not immediately profitable will face cut-and-burn for cattle ranching. It already happens. But your shitty planning would accelerate it.

>>10915

>prove this please

Prove it won't. Entrepreneurs will have a massive incentive to compete, unless the monopoly remains competitive.

>"true free marketry has never existed" argument. And I don't want to have that argument. We've had it before.

But it hasn't. Name one monopoly that lasted for more than 10 years in a free market that was not protected from competition by licensing, tariffs, regulation, and was not favored by subsidies, or preferential treatment in various areas (taxation, legal cases.)

>Would it not be the case therefore, that laws prohibiting monopolization would only ever need to be invoked when a company owns over 90% of the market share, and that therefore, if you're right, then the law need never be used in theory?

Monopolies wouldn't last, if they did, it would only be because they remained competitive. A lack of efficiency invokes competition from more competitive entrepreneurs.

>If you're wrong, you have a backup procedure.

>Assuming you have the right to prohibit businesses from being TOO successful for a period of time

wew lad

>Such a lazy method of environmentalism

It's the method most in line with human preferences.

Price is a measure of preference. Which is why things like loss of land to rising oceans can be reflected in a price system, people value a surface of land more than water (they can do far more with it.)

>Everything that's not immediately profitable will face cut-and-burn for cattle ranching

Nope.

1. People who wanted to cut a lot of trees would cut them in cycles over the course of several years, planting as they go, so they have a continuous surprise. They would not replant if they're only rented the land, who would do something as stupid as that *cough* government

There's the value of reserves, even for hunting. If you own the only pristine however many hundreds of miles of forest and you want to sell the right to hunt moose there at like $30,000 a head that's profitable for you. Also keeping land pristine is good for making parks to pay for hiking/kayaking etc. so no, cut-and-burn for cattle ranching would not be the sole reflection of the free market

IF water was privatized, we'd probably see a decrease in cattle ranching.

Yay for government subsidies, causing things leftists don't like, so they can invoke for the need for more government.

W E W

>>10920

*

>A lack of efficiency invokes competition from more competitive entrepreneurs.

Except that you have no idea how finite and difficult to produce most of these products are. "I'll just set up my alternative petroleum business" does not fly.

>>10920

** neglected

fucking hell

>>10920

>Why? You'll give me a "true free marketry has never existed" retort. We'll reiterate everything that's already been said before. So fuck that tree we've been barking up it since the time of Jesus.

If you can point me to a monopoly in American history where we had a private system of banking (no American bank), no regulations on businesses, no licensing, equal taxes on them, no tariffs, and no preferential treatment to some businesses- that's a free market. For the sake of argument, I'll accept if you can point me to a monopoly that existed in any nation when it faced

-Relatively low tariffs (less than 30%)

-No preferential treatment that is in any way significant to limiting competition (lower taxes, for instance)

-Limited regulation, only basic stuff like child labor laws, don't build your factory out of plywood, stuff that doesn't significantly increase the overhead of starting a business to compete with the monopoly.

-Licensing. Any licensing necessary should have been easy to get. If the monopoly is in a mining business and all miners require a $50,000 license paid for by the business, that's not the free market at work.

>Again, reiterating the same argument

I just lowered my standards to pseudo free-market. Point me to one long-lasting monopoly (at least 10-20 years.)

>I'm not sure what point you're getting at here besides "it's as it should be". Which is bollocks. Environmentalism is already negleted in a statist society. In a libertarian society, you can bulldoze the lot and claim "it's my right". No m8. Those forests were there before you were born and before you bought them. I don't see why it should be within the law to be a net contributor to genetic loss. All of us should pay. That includes you and me.

TREES DON'T HAVE RIGHTS YOU FUCKING NEO-PAGAN AUTIST

>beef can be more profitable than sustainable forestry.

WRONG

Beef is artificially cheap because of how water is priced. $5 for an amount of water would cost you $700 in a city. That's not the free market.

>Most of the world is unappealing to humans, consequently, most of the world remains at risk unless you do something about that.

Privatize the elk. Worked for buffalo. Worked for cows. Worked for elephants.

>Ohh wait, the "true freemarketry just hasn't been tried" shit is here again…

Do you know how many hoops you'd have to jump through to set up pumps to a bunch of peoples' houses? A lot more than in a free market.

>they literally buy up land so that small shops cannot have it).

Then the supermarket entrepreneur could just buy up land from a homeowner (because there wouldn't be retarded laws against durr muh residential district) or land from a businessowner who has very, very limited profits.

>You tolerate anti-consumerist policies like price-fixing

If unions can voluntarily collude to raise prices, why can't business? If the former is not a crime, how is the latter?

Oh, I know why

BECAUSE MUH FEEEEEEELIIIIINGS

>Except that you have no idea how finite and difficult to produce most of these products are. "I'll just set up my alternative petroleum business" does not fly.

If tariffs are really high so you can't buy an overseas petroleum business and then sell locally, yeah probably.

>>10949

At least Google and Monsanto benefit heavily from intellectual property laws. Even then, I doubt they actually qualify as monopolies. There is not a single product of Google that does not face competition of some sort. As for Monsanto, it's far away from controlling the worlds food supplies. What it might have a monopoly on is genetically modified food, but if you narrow the line of products down enough, every major company has a monopoly on something.

>Alright then, I'll phrase it another way. Do you think it would/should be acceptable to dump radioactive deposits onto communal (or 'not privately owned') property, like in the middle of international waters? Even if it is certain to not drift into human-populated areas?

If it did abolutely no harm to humans? In my opinion, it should be legal, even if I would find it abhorrent from a moral viewpoint.

>A free market let's 20 people build 20 wells and extract as much as they want until all the aquifers are empty.

The same thing would happen if you put the government in charge of a finite water supply.

>Well here's the thing: simulating scarcity while you hoard a commodity, can be extremely profitable indeed.

And how exactly is "simulating" scarcity of a scarce resource a bad thing?

If I got you right, pumping out all the water of your well is bad. So is not pumping all the water out. What exactly, then, am I allowed to do with my well?

>>10949

>>10949

>Goldman Sachs

>Using banking, perhaps the most heavily regulated industry, as an example of a monopoly created by the free market

Way too much regulation in banking for this to be relevant to libertarians.

>Monsanto

Gee, I wonder if the bogus concept of intellectual property is helping them maintain their monopoly?

>Procter & Gamble

What percent of the market share do they have in any of their given fields? I can't find anything on it, but say Gillette- not really a fucking monopoly on razors.

>ExxonMobil

The US has very high tariffs right now. Also

"It would be the first of many moves to come during the Bush administration that would position oil and gas companies well ahead of other energy interests with billions of dollars in subsidies and tax cuts—payback for an industry with strong ties to the administration and plenty of money to contribute to congressional and presidential campaigns."

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html

YEAH MAN LE FREE MARGET AT WORK XDDD

>Google

>Monopoly

They're really big, but what's their market share? Can you realistically say Google has a monopoly on software in the US? Telecomms equipment? Search engines?

>Do you think it would/should be acceptable to dump radioactive deposits onto communal (or 'not privately owned') property, like in the middle of international waters?

No, because that would damage other peoples' property. Do I think it's okay to store radioactive waste in once pristine wilderness, provided it doesn't damage other peoples' property? Absolutely.

>Wrong

>Right. Completely right. Show me where I'm wrong.

DID YOU NOT READ WHAT I WROTE? Agriculture is favored over eco-tourism due to government subsidy of water prices to agriculture which subsidizes the raising of cattle. That which you subsidize you get more of.

>Alright. What about all of the species that aren't effectively your cash crop?

If they're needed for the ecosystem they are important for our cash crop. If they're just some rare lizard that has no important effect on the environment I don't give a fuck, maybe save them for the sake of biodiversity, breeding, put them in a zoo, no other reason to beyond muh feels.

>A free market let's 20 people build 20 wells and extract as much as they want until all the aquifers are empty.

Not if the aquifer is privatized. You're describing the tragedy of the commons, a result of public ownership.

>they'll burn the shot down

They can try, but they'll get shot if anyone with a pair of testicles happens to be invested in the new supermarket- especially if they suspect the ebul existing one to attack them.

>Fuck off m8, you're not building your own high speed rail just cause one guy has a monopoly.

>Implying ONE GUY could have a monopoly on high speed rail

Not even one corporation would be able to in a free market, assuming there was any serious market for high speed rail travel.

>>10949

non of the list are monopolies nor have market dominance

>ExxonMobil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_exploration_and_production_companies

>Goldman Sachs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asset_management_firms

>Google

Baidu is #1 in China, not to mention other competitors such as Bing, DuckDuckGo, ask/jeeves, and yahoo

>Monsanto

Archer Daniels Midland, Dow Chemical, Evogene, Syngenta

> Procter & Gamble

Bic, Colgate, Estee Lauder, Revlon, Coty, Elizabeth Arden, Inter Parfums

>>10949

>What about all of the species that aren't effectively your cash crop?

The White Rhino? Of curse, they could extract their valuable horns, but then what creature is not a cash crop that is endangered?

>>10949

>simulating scarcity while you hoard a commodity, can be extremely profitable indeed.

I tried doing that by buying up all the Fire Pots in World of Warcraft just before the major raiding hours. It went up slightly in price at first but then everyone starting flooding the market, and I came out with a loss.

>>10957

You want to know a real monopoly?

One time I tried taxing some people and the govenrment charged me for extortion and theft!!

>>10957

>>10955

>>10950

>Some leftist is asked to provide an example of a pseudo free-market monopoly

>Gives 5 examples

>Every single one faces competition

>At least two of them massively benefit from the state fiction of intellectual property

>One of them is in the perhaps most heavily regulated field ever, banking

>One is a corporation that has seen ridiculously obvious government subsidies and favoritism

>None of them have presently hold a monopoly-level of market share and the lefty has yet to provide proof they ever did for any length of time

We lowered our standards to pseudo-free market AND THIS IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO?

But I'm sure despite this lefty getting BTFO three times in a row, he'll assert the free market causes monopolies in the future.

A U T I S M

U T I S M

T I S M A

T I S M A U

I S M A U

I S M A U T

S M A U T I

S M A U T I

M A U T I S

M A U T I S

A U T I S M

>>10968

OOPSIES I FORGOT TO REMOVE THE FLAG

I was just trolling. >>10965

was me, not a real commie

fugggggggggg

>>10971

To clarify: the post was sincere- but the flag was a leftover from when I was being retarded on a different post. Top wew.

>>10971

>>10972

This explains the racist commie. Libertarians are so stupid they need to false-flag to make someone look stupider than them.

>>10973

You mean we have to come up with blatant racism and literal mental retardation to make commies look even dumber, and even then it might not be working. Anyone else remember the DemSoc?

>>10976

Which part of "monopoly" did you not understand? Just because your company is the biggest in the business does not mean it has a monopoly. Not to mention that none of the businesses mention operate in a field in which a free market exists.

Also, ket at the picture.

>No fair oversimplifying our simplistic philosophy!

Communist ideology is a bad joke. You need the knowledge of an entire volume of books just to figure out how to make central planning work, and then it still doesn't work. Yet their moral arguments have all the sophistication of a 2x4. Centrists don't even have a consistent ideology, they are opportunists who go by their gut feeling and misled pragmatism.

>>10978

>Which part of "monopoly" did you not understand? Just because your company is the biggest in the business does not mean it has a monopoly.

9 out of 10 corn in the U.S is Monsanto produced corn. 9 out of 10 internet search in the U.S is Google produced internet search. But regardless of these things, the issue is not just one company holding an outright monopoly. Here is a list of the top 10 North American media companies, in order of market value:

>1. Disney Corporation

>2. Comcast

>3. Fox

>4. Viacom

>5. Time Warner

>6. Liberty Global

>7. DirecTV

>8. Time Warner 'Cable'

>9. CBS

>10. Reuters

Now I don't know if you learned anything from Gamergate or not, but it should not be difficult for you to fathom that these companies might group together to form a cartel. And yes, they *are* propped up by intellectual property laws (before you complain about that), but the fact of the matter is that this cartel will exist under a libertarian system as well, unless of course you move to prevent it.

>>10980

I know this is going to be a short answer that doesn't address everything you've said up until this point, but these companies are heavily protected by regulations other than IP.

For example, in Boston, many buildings have zoning codes that prevent you from getting satellite dishes on your apartment. Why is this a problem? Well, cable companies like RCN and Comcast have raised the barriers to entry for smaller, non-cable internet companies. I tried setting up internet with NetBlazr (a dish-based, radio-broadcasted internet company) only to find out the zoning laws prevent my building from putting a dish up outside my window.

That's just an example of how companies like Comcast subvert the market mechanism of competition in order to grow their business.

>>10980

>but the fact of the matter is that this cartel will exist under a libertarian system as well, unless of course you move to prevent it.

[citation needed]

Also, this:

>>10988

>>10987

>Sorry I forgot to include a picture that was supposed to antagonize libertarians. *Fixed.

You fucking neo-pagan assburger.

>Sometimes it works: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/william-shakespeare/9963602/Shakespeare-was-a-tax-evading-food-hoarder-study-claims.html

I addressed this somewhere else: The market in Ireland was not the least bit free, to the point that making any kinds of inferences of how a free market would behave is not possible from it.

>Numerous species are extinct because we introduced rats and grazing animals to territories that had never adapted to them being there. They died out simply because our only concerns were to make the 'cash crop' reproduce more abundantly.

Why do I never see anyone look at how much the situation has improved for the rats and the grazing animals? You portray it like this didn't even have any good sides from the point of view of someone who thinks every living being has a right to exist. Why not the rats and grazing animals, then?

>I'm already aware that agriculture is heavily subsidized. But so is tourism. So what citations have you got that demonstrate this claim of yours?

>citations

Something tells me this discussion will get really messy really soon.

>>10988

>Ohh and one more point just to add on top of that: here is a list of dairy product companies in America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dairy_product_companies_in_the_United_States - now show me how profitable sustainable forestry companies are by comparison (p.s. there is no list because cattle ranching wipes the floor with this shit).

And what is that supposed to prove?

>>10973

>>10973

I was not falseflagging as a racist commie, I've only ever made a couple troll posts with other flag.

Called P-LIB party P-LEB as best korea flag, said some retarded shit and then fug DDDD: as

commie, think that's it. No shit that isn't obviously retarded.

>>10976

>Name another with 400 billion dollars in revenue.

Monopoly status is independent of both revenue and profit, you ignorant fuck. If there's 100 billion people on Earth and my business makes 4 trillion in revenue, that is neither necessary or sufficient to achieving monopoly status.

>I guess you could say that there's no problem with monopolization in the finance industry :^)

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY PICKING THE MOST HEAVILY REGULATED INDUSTRY IN HUMAN HISTORY AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW MONOPOLIES ARE CREATED IN A FREE MARKET, EVEN WHEN YOUR EXAMPLES ARE NOT EXAMPLES OF MONOPOLIES BECAUSE THEY FACE COMPETITION AND DO NOT HAVE AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE MARKETSHARE

Well then, fuck you too.

>if you bought corn in the U.S, then you bought Monsanto corn.

Le exaggeration face xdddd

>but the fact of the matter is that this cartel will exist under a libertarian system as well, unless of course you move to prevent

Cartel of business existing without the help of government (besides basic shit like law and order?) Give me one fucking example.

>>10987

>People will use the aquifers too much!

Either privatize the aquifer or don't bitch about people taking too much out at one time. Same applies to fishing. If I own a 500x500 mile area of ocean, I won't overfish it, because I have the fishing rights forever- and that ocean will be useless if I take out all the fish.

>So what citations have you got that demonstrate this claim of yours?

Some farmers with riparian water

rights or exchange agreements with the federal government receive water at very low cost (USD5 to USD10 per

1,000 m

3

), while other farmers with less favorable contracts or those who purchase water from some state-level

irrigation agencies pay much higher prices (ranging from USD20 to more than USD100 per 1,000 m

3

). Farmers

purchasing water in market transactions to finish an irrigation season or to ensure water supply for perennial crops

might pay prices that exceed USD100 per 1,000 m

3

for a portion of their irrigation supply.

http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/45016437.pdf

The government provides water to farmers at a tenth of its market value

>DURR EVERYTHING WILL BE CATTLE FARM TOMORROW WITH FREE MARKET

retarded, still retarded

>>10987

>that pic

Somalia is increasingly moving back to Xeer, and believe it or not, it's working quite well. Turns out it was the socialist dictator that made it a hell hole after all!

>>11001

> No shit that isn't obviously retarded.

It's really hard to tell on /liberty/.

>>11002

>not wanting orange juice rivers

>>11002

Damn, you really seem to love the shit out of bison.

>>11011

NICE PALINDROME

tbh

>>11001

>Monopoly status is independent of both revenue and profit, you ignorant fuck. If there's 100 billion people on Earth and my business makes 4 trillion in revenue, that is neither necessary or sufficient to achieving monopoly status.

I think I might have been wrong about ExxonMobil holding a monopoly. The way it seems to work is that every country has one petroleum company (like 'British Petroleum') who gets awarded all of the local contracts and then the rest can go get fucked… but on an international level, there is competition.

Still, under libertarianism it's still going to be hard to get a contract for an oil field, which means that there's not a lot of competition.

>without the help of government give me one fucking example

Everything is subsidized or protected by law in some form or other, under a statist system. It's like me asking you to give me one example of a functioning libertarian society.

>Either privatize the aquifer or don't bitch about people taking too much out at one time. Same applies to fishing. If I own a 500x500 mile area of ocean, I won't overfish it, because I have the fishing rights forever- and that ocean will be useless if I take out all the fish.

But you don't own all of the ocean. You own a small piece of it. And the fish are free to roam. Same tragedy of the commons problems, unless you self-regulate yourselves as part of a fishing union.

>>11003

>If you're a Libertarian, just introduce fucking water rights. Shit, you could make air rights that companies could sell between each other and solve pollution as well for fuck's sake.

This changes the classic libertarian argument of "I own the air above my land and the ground beneath it" to one where you can sell the air, ground, and land rights independently. Which is fair enough. But it still doesn't address the tragedy of the commons from earlier unless you own the entire aquifer, and these can stretch for miles.

>What commodity can you successfully simulate a scarcity with other than Diamonds and Gold?

You exaggerate an already existing problem by buying up stock. 1907 a bad year for wine production? Fucking buy it. Buy all of it. Chant "Fuck you fuck you fuck you" as you do.

>I don't live next to niggers, sorry.

You have an idea what it's like to operate in an ultra-competitive environment?

At least niggers are clumsy. When whites fuck with you, they'll fuck with you thoroughly.

>>11010

still better here than the /pol/s

>>11050

>For the simple matter that these companies did not merge together because legislation demanded it, but rather because it was profitable to do so.

Not the point. The merger would've been an insignificant event if both corporations weren't being pushed up by the government, before and after the merger.

>What's wrong with pagans anyway? How about we get all abrahamic up in here and see how that works out?

How about you stop being an autist?

>Genetic loss. Homogenization. Uniqueness gone.

Again, you're bitching because the status quo is gone.

>(from that list I gave you:) Dairy Farmers Cooperative of America produced net sales of 12.8 billion dollars in 2013. I could not find a timber company to compare this to.

That does not mean dairy farming is inherently more profitable, as someone else already explained.

>Explain pic related. There is no barrier to entry - anyone can start a blog.

Blogs aren't fucking newspapers, magazines or TV stations, you fucking idiot! You're not really competing against a TV station by setting up your own blog.

>This is a good point, but you can have laws without politicians.

These demand on public acceptance.

>No one will abolish their state without a bloody good reason founded in proofs.

We already have these proofs. It's been a long while since I've actually heard a politician mention any piece of libertarian literature, though. Complain about them being mentally retarded pieces of shit that can't fucking read the literature that is already there, not about there not being enough "proof", except for literal libraries on why libertarianism is the best ideology.

>But unlike the U.S.S.R, libertarian rhetoric isn't charismatic or appealing to the simple-minded. If "the burden of proof isn't on you" and you can't preach it to a bunch of illiterate farmers then what good can it do?

Translation:

>It's complicated, therefore it's wrong.

>>11051

>I think I might have been wrong about ExxonMobil holding a monopoly.

You totally were.

>Still, under libertarianism it's still going to be hard to get a contract for an oil field, which means that there's not a lot of competition.

More than we have now.

>Everything is subsidized or protected by law in some form or other, under a statist system. It's like me asking you to give me one example of a functioning libertarian society.

It's a tricky endeavor, but you can sometimes reason that something is the result of the free market mechanisms, not of statist intervention. Case in point: Gypsy cabs. They weren't subsidized, the government never held them in high esteem, and yet, they flourished. The market they engaged in was not distorted to an extent that you can't tell they succeeded (until the government stepped in) because they fulfilled a demand.

>But you don't own all of the ocean. You own a small piece of it. And the fish are free to roam. Same tragedy of the commons problems, unless you self-regulate yourselves as part of a fishing union.

They will flourish in the 500x500 mile area of ocean, at least.

>>11052

Anon, it's the reverse. Libertarianism follows the laws of physics in that the more complex it is, the simpler the equation.

Libertarian philosophy in a nutshell:

Less government + more freedom = greater prosperity for everyone

>>10898

>>10898

>that pic

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/248215469679448064/german-town-abolishes-traffic-lights-and-codes-accidents-are-now-almost-non-existent

Git gud, phaggot.

>>11050

I can't have a TV station, or a radio station, There's this thing called the FCC that makes it impossible for me.

>>11074

WAIT, ARE YOU SAYING THE GOVERNMENT MAKES IT EITHER IMPOSSIBLE OR NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPETE IN A VARIETY OF INDUSTRIES?

UNTHINKABLE! THIS MUST BE WRONG, SO I WILL IGNORE IT.

>>10965

>We lowered our standards to pseudo-free market

And yet they are still not monopolies.

>>10976

>>Monopoly is #1 in China, not to mention other competitors such as Monopoly,

2 monopolies in the world market? Perhaps you should look up the definition of a monopoly.

>Good ol' Goldman Sachs, the underdog, with only 854 billion dollars in assets, competing with Vanguard, a 3 trillion dollar asset company

So you admit not one company is market dominant

>if you bought corn in the U.S, then you bought Monsanto corn

80% chance you did (l;es than that if you include imports).

>>10980

>but it should not be difficult for you to fathom that these companies might group together to form a cartel

But they haven't under, even under FCC regulations.

>>11135

>You're constantly having to explain libertarianism.

Less government + more freedom = greater prosperity for everyone

Pretty fucking simple. Equally splitting my capital wealth I spent a lifetime creating with 1,000 people who I happened to employ at the moment also doesn't sound very romantic.

That's like telling Chad he has to pay a portion of his salary to every girl he's fucked because they participated in fucking him at some point/didn't benefit as much from it.

>>11139

Cartels aren't profitable unless you're consolidating political power/violence.

In markets, a cartel means less profit for you and a greater chance that a competitor can wipe out everything at once because you all use the same system/same practices. It's like when a species all have the same genomes allowing a virus competition to quickly wipe them all out.

>>11155

are you calling competition a virus you fucking statist

>>>/wewlad/

[/sarcasm]

>>11154

>Pretty fucking simple

>"Mr.Libby, tell me again how will the roads work?"

Listen to this and tell me it isn't romantic.

I think that under the guise of free speech, libertarianism could begin to approach becoming a 'populist movement'. But seriously, you need a manifesto and shit on how precisely a libertarian society should function. Most of you guys don't put your time into that, and it shows.

Back to my original point: There are many times when, instead of loathing bureaucracy, I love it. I like that in the Philippines for example, there are laws on the correct way to slaughter animals with regards to animal cruelty. I like how in Europe, the ambulances are regimented so that a doctor's tools are always in the same place inside the van no matter which vehicle he steps into. I like how harmful food additives are prohibited - yes, you could "let the market decide" - but I don't want to be the one who pays the human cost for it. I like anti-monopolization. I like pro-environmentalism. I like how access for the minority of disabled people is not just a kind courtesy but a mandatory requirement (dropped curbs would be "an uneconomical addition" in a libertarian society).

I think that pseudo-libertarianism (much like pseudo-socialism in Scandinavia) could work incredibly effectively. I expect it would be gradually eroded over time much like the American constitution, but then.. much like the Roman Empire, political power is seldom ever eternal anyhow.

>>11188

>there are laws on the correct way to slaughter animals with regards to animal cruelty.

Oh, you mean like laws that mandate you castrate an animal by putting a rubber band around its balls to cut off blood flow which takes weeks and is extremely painful as opposed to castrating them with a knife which is painful for a brief minute and the animal walks around fine instead of suffering?

Yeah, because evil capitalists just choose the most painful way possible to slaughter their cows.

>I like how in Europe, the ambulances are regimented so that a doctor's tools are always in the same place inside the van no matter which vehicle he steps into.

Retarded. Totally unnecessary. An EMT is not going to have an ambulance he did not have time to familiarize himself with before he takes it on a call.

You could also just make "toolboxes" that are set up the same way, barring the need for more fucking bureaucracy.

>like how harmful food additives are prohibited - yes, you could "let the market decide" - but I don't want to be the one who pays the human cost for it.

Top fucking kek, the FDA is full of shit, and you are too apparently.

>I like how access for the minority of disabled people is not just a kind courtesy but a mandatory requirement

>I like things, therefore you should be shot if you refuse to comply!

Statism 101 folks

>>11219

>And this makes me all comfy knowing that, even if neopagans are unpopular, they are still more acceptable than libertarians.

There are far more white libertarians than white neopagans. So this is empirically not true, at least anywhere that matters (not the Phillipines)

>you'll tell me out of the fleet of ambulances exactly where the 1/4" hose is kept - but not in your native tongue though because this is Europe, and nobody wants to do that shitty EMT job unless they're slav or pakistani.

If it was my ambulance it'd be my job to know where it is. The fact that other people share the same set up would do nothing to aid my memory.

>Or will you simply revert back to the "but it's unnecessary because monopolies can't exist" piece of shit?

We've been over that even in a pseudo free-market you can't point to examples of long-lasting (10-20 yr) monopolies. Your only examples have what can generously be called an oligopoly (industries mostly participated in by a few companies.) A free market would not encourage super large firms, because if you just have on giant firm you can't have economic calculation (see: Mises.) Even if a monopoly came into existence, it would not be a violation of your or my rights.

>>11219

>It wouldn't be economical for me to cater to cripples

No, you gigantic faggot, I think that the catering of cripples should be done

VOLUNTARILY

The difference between going on a car ride and being kidnapped is that the latter is not voluntary. The difference between love-making and rape is the voluntary nature of the former. The difference between outright murder and assisted suicide is the latter is voluntarily requested. The difference between wanting to help cripples and being a faggot with a huge sense of entitlement is that the latter thinks it's okay to enforce preferences (like helping criminals) by gun point, if mere threats of legal repercussions are not enough to compel others.

>>11188

>you need a manifesto and shit on how precisely a libertarian society should function

You've completely missed the point of libertarianism. The entire point is that nobody can possibly know what everyone else ought to do, and that we should allow the superior functionality of self-organizing systems to optimize human interactions.

>>11228

A libertarian manifesto on exactly how a libertarian society would function is oxymoronic. At best, it could be an example if "what could this be like," but it could be a great many other things consistent with the same libertarian principles.

>>11188

>I think that under the guise of free speech, libertarianism could begin to approach becoming a 'populist movement'. But seriously, you need a manifesto and shit on how precisely a libertarian society should function. Most of you guys don't put your time into that, and it shows.

Almost every aspect of how a libertarian society could function was described at some point by somebody. That's all besides the point, though. If we describe how the roads will work, people will demand to know what the military will look like. If we describe to them how the roads and the military will work, they will demand to know what the justice system will look like, then the police, public welfare, healthcare, the school system, and eventually they'll claim it won't work because without a state, how will we ever fund trips to space? I mean, the free market can't do THAT, obviously! :^)

Murray Rothbard has already shown decades ago how most functions of the state could be fulfilled much better without a state. No one I personally know has even read his fucking book, and preciously few non-libertarians I have met online have, even though his descriptions are vivid enough to get the reader at least thinking. So no, I don't think writing a shitty, pseudoscientific "libertarian manifesto" will help our cause.

>>11233

>And you should answer them. Answer them all as best as you possibly can. "Why should I?"

Most have been answered. Few people care to read those answers, as I said. You can simplify them and collect them, that would be possible and could be productive, but I think you're overrating it.

>This is already happening. People are already being made not comfy by the state. If you latch onto inequality and freedom of speech as romantic ideals, then I believe that libertarianism could be popularized.

This is a good point. ACTA got people pissed off and spawned several political movements, precisely because it gave them simple ideals to fight for. Libertarians need to start hopping on trains like that, of course while staying careful not to turn the ideology into a bland hugbox.

>>11230

Not necessarily. You'd just need to explain how all or almost all functions currently served by the state can be served better by the free market and back it up with concrete examples wherever possible (i.e. pretty much any time the free market has been allowed to do its thing). The point would just be to create a cohesive book on libertarian philosophy, why it works, and when it's worked in the past. Perhaps more importantly, though, it would focus on why the most popular alternatives, socialism and communism, do not work and never have.

I mean, most of Marx's writings were just criticisms of capitalism, with comparatively little being said about what the communist state would actually look like.

Honestly, the idea that humans don't need a coddling nanny state and can reach their greatest heights simply by being left to their own devices is pretty romantic, and the idea of self-determination is certainly romantic.

I generally feel that a romanticized portrayal of libertarianism would also focus on just how weak and pathetic socialism/communism makes us out to be. Such a portrayal should also take great care to dispel the notion that socialism and communism are more driven by compassion, and that libertarianism for some reason considers such qualities undesirable.

>>11235

>but I think you're overrating it.

I disagree. Having one work to point to which compiles the necessary components of your philosophy and conveys them in a way that a lot of people can understand is tremendously valuable. I mean, think of how many people don't even really know what libertarianism is.

In the end, we're going to need to be able to show and convince the average individual that libertarianism is beneficial to them.

>>11250

>Not necessarily. You'd just need to explain how all or almost all functions currently served by the state can be served better by the free market and back it up with concrete examples wherever possible (i.e. pretty much any time the free market has been allowed to do its thing). The point would just be to create a cohesive book on libertarian philosophy, why it works, and when it's worked in the past. Perhaps more importantly, though, it would focus on why the most popular alternatives, socialism and communism, do not work and never have.

Sounds like "For a new Liberty" to me.

>>10934

Libertarian checking in

<3 Milton

But the problem with monopolies is when they use it to create other monopolies

See: railroads/steel/mining in the 19th century.

Today it would be google buying Comcast and merging with Microsoft and intel and then you would be blocked from surfing the web unless you were i-series+win10

That's a real danger. Any startup to compete would get stomped with billions of dollars and cronyism

>>11444

Do you think the mega-corporations (or the government, who works to benefit the mega-corporations) will ever try to outlaw (or defunct) old-school PCs to access the internet?

That has been my biggest fear for many years now, that someday in the future they'll mandate us use iPhones or somekind of 24/7 tracking device to access the internet.

>>11462

My government has all but made uncrackable encryption a crime already. You Americans have that bullshit "we already have proof so you may as well show us" clause. But in Britbongistan, you are flat out expected to provide evidence against yourself under threat of imprisonment. Also evidence obtained illegally is permissible in court here, if it can be shown to be significant in impacting the case.

I just want to follow hotwheels to the philippines.

>>11462

Depends who gets elected prez next honestly. We are at a critical turning point in US history. Do we continue down the road to an authoritarian orwellian surveillance state run by corrupt wall street bankers pretending to be liberals or start acting like freedom matters

>>11444

>But the problem with monopolies is when they use it to create other monopolies

It's not efficient to merge 100% of the time, even if it was that wouldn't mean the biggest businesses would merge, the shareholders have their own private concerns, including concerns about the general public.

>Today it would be google buying Comcast and merging with Microsoft and intel and then you would be blocked from surfing the web unless you were i-series+win10

Is that a violation of any of your rights, aka any of your property rights since they're the only rights you have?

https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

National monopolies not really addressing the threat of mergers. One obvious point is that there is a limit to how large a firm can get, if one firm controlled all the world's means of production it would have no means of economic calculation and no way to rationally allocate scarce resources as per the demands of consumers. It's the same reason a government can't direct the entire economy successfully and rationally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale

>>10882

Microsoft circa 2005.

>>11483

>long lasting

>monopoly

k, so it was none, nice.

>>11493

It was prevented from becoming a long lasting monopoly by laws.

As a response to OP's picture regarding "lack of government oversight" you guys better take a look at this article here because it goes to show how governments, (like mega-corporations), are very easily corrupted as well and do not necessarily have you're best interests in mind:

First we had “too big to fail”. Then came “too big to jail”. Now, finally, the U.S. Department of “Justice” is letting us know what it really thinks: U.S. Big Banks simply have a license to steal.

The most amazing thing about the Justice Department’s new guidelines on prosecution of corporate crime is that the DOJ is effectively acknowledging there was a big problem with how it did things before.

Yes. As these criminalized institutions now perpetrate financial mega-crimes measured (literally) in the $trillions, we have the so-called Justice Department claiming it has been too hard on this financial crime syndicate. Yes. Presumably if the DOJ hadn’t taken its previous, supposed “tough love” approach to these financial criminals, they would now already be perpetrating multi-QUADRILLION dollar crimes. And the U.S. government certainly won’t stand in the way of “progress”.

Supposedly, giving these fraud-factories microscopic fines as their sole punishment was being too harsh – when it comes to enforcing the law. Let me reiterate; we have the U.S. Department of Justice effectively implying that even its previous, token enforcement of laws against financial crimes was impeding the (crimes of the) financial sector. In the United States of Crime, any time there is a conflict between “law” (the Rule of Law) and “profit” (the proceeds of crime), the U.S. Department of Justice sides with profit – i.e. the criminals.

What the Big Banks really “need”, according to the DOJ, is absolute immunity. It’s like the grandparents of a spoiled brat. No matter how horrific the deed perpetrated by the brat, the grandparents never do anything more than muss-up his hair a bit, and then say “run along, you little Scamp, and don’t do this, again.”

Is there any chance that the spoiled brat would ever reform his intolerable behavior? Of course not. Is there any possibility that telling these fraud-factories, in absolutely explicit terms that they will never be prosecuted will actually “deter crime?” No, of course not.

https://archive.is/8pEZT

>>11522

whatever you say fam

>>11522

It was prevented from becoming a monopoly because of competitors entering the market.

0/10

>>11659

Like Apple, which they funded so they won't get fucked in the ass by anti-monopoly laws?

>>11051

>But it still doesn't address the tragedy of the commons from earlier unless you own the entire aquifer, and these can stretch for miles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

>>11696

Walter White became Heisenberg because cooking meth and becoming a crime lord was the only thing that made him more powerful and successful than the people he had grudges against. Lung cancer was just the catalyst.

Seriously. Am I the only one who did understand this show?

>TL;DR ancaps love monopolies as if they were greedy kikes.

Which is why they're so in denial about monopolies ever happening. Except, you know, they're right, so it isn't denial.

>>11696

>Because I'm not getting it. Explain to me what you mean.

There is a branch of libertarianism that believes strongly in the idea of the commons:

"Geolibertarians hold that geographical space and raw natural resources—most importantly, land—are common assets which all individuals share an equal right to access, not capital wealth to be privatized"

So when you say "under libertarianism" I don't think this really means anything. While all libertarians believe that a state primarily exists to protect personal freedoms and liberties in the general sense and that government should be limited in scope to provide only necessary functions, what this entails in terms of specific policy implementation and how real-world problems are solved under this philosophy (such as monopolies) depends entirely on the specific person you are talking to.

Although it shouldn't be surprising that a political philosophy emphasizing freedom has no monolithic party line.

>>11696

and to continue from my post here >>11704 I actually agree with you that one of the limited functions of a state should be to prevent monopolies from using their power to reduce market freedom. This is entirely compatible with Libertarianism, although not all libertarianians hold this belief.