@msut77
I use the word "believe" to avoid being an elitist. I don't consider any school of thought to be truly concrete.
@ mykevermin
I would agree with you if other large corporations were not receiving bailouts. Govt and large corporations are in bed with each other. I would not go so far so to reward failure. Furthermore, more regulation has only proven to delay the inevitable downfall and places too much power in the hands of the few over the many. Enron is a prime example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. Politicians help them with our tax dollars and they return the favor to not us, but them. However, if they overindulge and don't account for market forces, the correction will undoubtedly occur sooner than later.
@camoor
USA, #1.
@ thrustbucket
That is a very interesting comment. Its true we are not spiritually/sociallyy ready for such a society. I only hope for one that leans more towards a free society than a socialistic one.
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I'd be up for ending the Fed, sure. But it along with all other banks aside from one in North Dakota are private entities. I would nationalize all of them including the Fed, which I suspect is not quite what you had in mind.
That's correct, I would not support it. Neither would our founding fathers. Competition would breed better interest rates and lending opportunities. Its bad enough as it currently exists as an FDIC insured entity, allowing banks to be taxed further and be controlled by an unconstitutional symbiotic relationship to the reserve. This does not yield good end results for the consumer.
Whenever I meet a libertarian, I destroy them immediately...
I can sense your passion. For the record, I'm a skeptic and choose not to get involved with labels.
...by telling them that the existence of negative externalities makes the concept of the free market a fiction of the highest order, along with the idea that people are rational actors, or that markets can exist at all without governments, or that one could perform any significant action at all in their daily life without inadvertently effecting another person.
Negative externalities exist, true. However the spillover can be heavily mitigated depending on what is being discussed. For example, I wan't my water operated motor vehicle as the potential for one had been demonstrated Stan Meyer's water buggy. Where is it? Bureaucratic regulations and censorship lobbied for by the oil industry won't ever let it see the light of day. Additionally, people aim to be rational actors but their actions may not be, and I believe this is because the concept of value exists in their minds, not the product itself.
...But it starts to add up quick when you factor in what either the governments or the individuals pays for a) the cost of military excursions that are heavily influenced by certain strategic resources, b) environmental damage or c) health care costs incurred by humans as a result of burning fossil fuels (e.g. cancers).
The individual nor the government would have to pay for any of this if: (a) we were not involved in military operations, especially for resources that are abundant at home, not to mention the cost of blowback, (b) and (c) environmental damage would not be as severe if alternative energy was given the chance to compete in a fair market
Ron Paul speaks out against corporatism, but as a free trader/free market guy, he plays directly into their hands, since power is only held by groups. Individuals have almost no power over any aspect of their lives - and so they band together to increase their power, through families, church groups, unions, corporations and even governments. Here is another of the many nonsensical ideas of libertarianism, that depowering one of the groups (government) will allow power to trickle down to the bottom, rather than being subsumed entirely by one of the other groups on its way down.
I'm unfamiliar with that last concept of libertarianism, but I would not expect everyone on an equal playing field, just the absence of the those who have become omnipotent in the same way a free rider intends to become. However, I will speak to your "power is only held by groups" statement. I think you are missing the great equalizer, and that is the individual's ability to cost effectively suppress conflict from a distance. Namely, our uniquely human ability to throw to kill. This ability is the evolutionary basis of our cooperation and it can also allow the coercion of groups, or at the very least prevent it from happening to him by the threat of reciprocity. We see this ability today in the form of guns and nuclear weapons. So if we all had nuclear weapons there would be much less warfare, like nil, at least on the superficial international scale (no longer invading other countries with huge numbers of troops). Also, 2nd Amendment for the win!
Conceptually, if you were a big fan of the market as an arbitrator of value or a solver of problems, you would want the market price to reflect the actual price being paid/value. Assuming that people were rational actors, you would want them to be more informed so that they could make good decisions, yes?
As soon as a people get to vote, they are going to form a Constitution, and they are going to decide that the government that they form allow them certain rights - and thus any hope of Libertarianism will be destroyed. It has recently become my theory that Libertarians are in fact, anarcho-capitalists. Many of them can be cornered quite easily into professing that the vote of one's wallet is preferable to an actual democratic vote. If the federal government does something disagreeable, well it should really be the province of the state government. If the state government does something disagreeable, it should really be the realm of the city. If the elected city officials do something disagreeable, then well, it should really be the market that decides.[/QUOTE]
You state some very intellectual viewpoints, its too bad the keynesian politicians don't seem to have the same level of competence. I don't agree that libertarianism can be destroyed, in the practical sense, by allowing a vote since they are not anarchists as you seem to believe. I feel thats overly theoretical. I also don't quite understand when you say:
" Many of them can be cornered quite easily into professing that the vote of one's wallet is preferable to an actual democratic vote. "
Since I'm not a libertarian, just a Ron Paul supporter.
Also, why should the market decide if the city officials do something disagreeable? Is that not suggesting that the people will andshould indirectly burden the costs of their actions? This is especially concerning when it is an unfair (regulated) market. Then shouldn't the people keep them in check instead?
Thanks for taking the time to write it all out. Its these viewpoints that challenge the generally accepted that I'm on the look out for, though I don't agree.
Next:
WHO WANTS TO END THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX / IRS?
I definitely do.
off back to 4chan
![whatthecocks]](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fbitingpearofsalamanca.png%5B%2Fwhatthecocks%5D&hash=e9f6dfe1230e6eb7b0a2e8249a8c80d4)
