Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[Ivanstone]

Free market principles are getting the government out of the marketplace. This is literally the government enforcing the marketplace with their government-granted monopolies.

Free Market principles are about making money in the most efficient means possible. If the market decides it wants government interference, then that's what its going to try and get.

- - - Updated - - -

That's exactly why I opposed the regulations pushed by JD that were designed to limit competition.

JD got more competition instead. One of their competitors got a special advantage on top of that. Results matter.

[Endus]

Theirs a common misconception that competition is a natural phenomenon in capitalist marketplaces. It's not simple because its not profitable. Collusion and consolidation are much more profitable.

See, the trick is that Adam Smith's vision of capitalism involved a system entirely predicated on the benefit of the consumers, and regulation was expected to constrain the owners of the means of production whenever a conflict between their interests and the consumers emerged, even on issues as simple as pricing.

That, of course, bears next to no resemblance to modern capitalism, which flipped that mantra around entirely. Where the exploitation of workers and consumers became the standard, starting in the mid-19th Century, if not earlier. What Adam Smith was talking about was arguably closer to modern democratic market socialism than to modern capitalism.

[Machismo]

Monopolies which, failing government regulation of the "free market", naturally occur anyways and have a long history in the US. This is the government essentially removing those regulations (you know, harmful burdens!) and letting a company expand to its natural conclusion: Which is always and inevitably a monopoly unless prevented by onerous government regulations.

Your apparent inability to look to history or process any nuance or shades of gray is really, really boring.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of monopolies are a direct result of government action, not a lack of government intervention.

As for the free-market issue, he was saying that those government-granted monopolies are behaving in a free-market manner, which isn't even close to true.

- - - Updated - - -

Free Market principles are about making money in the most efficient means possible. If the market decides it wants government interference, then that's what its going to try and get.

- - - Updated - - -



JD got more competition instead. One of their competitors got a special advantage on top of that. Results matter.

No, the free markets are literally pointing to a lack of government involvement in the marketplace. That's what it means.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp

We're talking about so much government control, they've created a monopoly.

[Mayhem]

Luckily, I explained it.

It's pointless. You do something you accuse others of doing in another thread. I must apologize to boomerpanther, you are a bigger hypocrite than he is.

[Machismo]

It's pointless. You do something you accuse others of doing in another thread. I must apologize to boomerpanther, you are a bigger hypocrite than he is.

Feel free to apologize all you like.

Just call it marketing.

[Edge-]

The simple fact is that the vast majority of monopolies are a direct result of government action, not a lack of government intervention.

This is a historically inaccurate take and ignores the entirety of the robber baron era of the US that spurred anti-monopoly regulations and legislation. Prior to the Sherman Anti-Trust legislation, monopolies and cartels were legal, and were taking over one industry after another.

As for the free-market issue, he was saying that those government-granted monopolies are behaving in a free-market manner, which isn't even close to true.

Actually, they bloody well are. They're behaving as if the anti-monopoly regulations passed don't exist. This is what things would look like without those regulations, because you need to qualitatively analyze a regulation rather than just generalizing and declaring things blanket good/bad.

[Machismo]

This is a historically inaccurate take and ignores the entirety of the robber baron era of the US that spurred anti-monopoly regulations and legislation. Prior to the Sherman Anti-Trust legislation, monopolies and cartels were legal, and were taking over one industry after another.



Actually, they bloody well are. They're behaving as if the anti-monopoly regulations passed don't exist. This is what things would look like without those regulations, because you need to qualitatively analyze a regulation rather than just generalizing and declaring things blanket good/bad.

Well, I'm currently going back and forth naming them all. It's currently the other side's turn to name monopolies. Care to jump in?

As for the free-market aspect, government-granted monopolies aren't the free markets. It's not even close. Now, you can say they have a profit motive, and that's fine. But, to say that it is anything close to being the free markets, is to ignore what the term means.

[Endus]

This is a historically inaccurate take and ignores the entirety of the robber baron era of the US that spurred anti-monopoly regulations and legislation. Prior to the Sherman Anti-Trust legislation, monopolies and cartels were legal, and were taking over one industry after another.

It also ignores that "monopolization" is not automatically a negative. In the case of things like government-run power and water distribution, it provides a provision of service that is not motivated by a profit incentive and which holds the welfare of the public as its primary objective. Denying competition there is less about trying to raise prices (since profits aren't a consideration to begin with) and more about preventing exploitative and abusive corporate shenanigans from harming citizens, directly or indirectly.

Monopolies can be bad. They are not inherently bad. And even where there is no monopoly, collusion between competitors can bring about the same issues as monopolization in a "free market" system.

[Elegiac]

As for the free-market aspect, government-granted monopolies aren't the free markets. It's not even close.

Cool, now that we've established that the free market as you describe cannot possibly ever exist maybe it's time for you to sit down. Lol.

Hint: If it is a "free market" controlled by private business owners, the private business owners are the government.

[Machismo]

Sad that you don't even know what the next baby stepper would be. I'm against stepping on babies btw.

Let's try reducing spending for a change, or even stopping the increases.

Good luck!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Cool, now that we've established that the free market as you describe cannot possibly ever exist maybe it's time for you to sit down. Lol.

I'm simply saying that a government-granted monopoly is not acting within a free market.

That's it.

Maybe you should read what was being typed.

[Elegiac]

I'm simply saying that a government-granted monopoly is not acting within a free market.

That's it.

And the reason you feel the need to "simply say it" is so you have grounds to dismiss any and all examples of monopolies arising from capitalism and the free market as "not being real monopolies" or not actually the result of capitalism and the free market somehow. It's a stupid No True Scotsman argument and demonstrative of how hollow your belief system actually is, rofl.

Pretty cringe, but you aren't the first libertarian/anarchist/freeloader to make these arguments so that's why they're so easily identifiable.

[downnola]

When are we going to cut spending?

You keep saying we need to cut spending as if spending itself is a bad thing. It's not if you're getting something out of the spending, and considering how many people would be screwed if we just implemented blind austerity for austerity's sake, I'd say you have a weak argument on your hands.

As has been pointed out, wealthy people pay a higher percentage of their incomes on taxes than the rest.

Do they though?


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-wealthy.html

[Machismo]

And the reason you feel the need to "simply say it" is so you have grounds to dismiss any and all examples of monopolies arising from capitalism and the free market as "not being real monopolies." It's a stupid No True Scotsman argument and demonstrative of how hollow your belief system actually is, rofl.

Pretty cringe.

As was also discussed, the vast majority of monopolies are a direct result of government involvement, not the free markets.

Whoops.

[Elegiac]

As was also discussed, the vast majority of monopolies are a direct result of government involvement, not the free markets.

Wow it's almost as if the idea of a "free market" is a mythological construct that doesn't reflect human economic activity in practice, making the argument - as said - specious and stupid? Lol.

[Machismo]

You keep saying we need to cut spending as if spending itself is a bad thing. It's not if you're getting something out of the spending, and considering how many people would be screwed if we just implemented blind austerity for austerity's sake, I'd say you have a weak argument on your hands.



Do they though?


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-wealthy.html

Yes, it was pointed out, with the tax records from this past year.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of...ta-2020-update

[Elegiac]

Yes, it was pointed out, with the tax records from this past year.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of...ta-2020-update

"They pay more" is not "they pay taxes proportional to the share of wealth and income they own", sweaty.

[Machismo]

Wow it's almost as if the idea of a "free market" is a mythological construct that doesn't reflect human economic activity in practice, making the argument - as said - specious and stupid? Lol.

Great, tell that to the person who said that government-granted monopolies are operating in a free market.

This is what happens when you have no frame of reference, Donny.

[Endus]

I'm simply saying that a government-granted monopoly is not acting within a free market.

That's it.

Maybe you should read what was being typed.

It's a trivially correct statement, in that free markets don't actually exist in the first place. There are myriad regulations and trade agreements affecting even international markets, not to mention the coercive practices of corporations themselves which also negatively affect the freedoms in the market.

Like, take the employment market. It's famously not a free market, and cannot be one, because it's a market fundamentally predicated on continuous one-sided duress, suppressing wages, to such an extent that government support is required to offset that, in every developed nation on the planet, if not through minimum wage laws directly, then through government support of broad unionization. The only way to bring about even the possibility of a free employment market would be to guarantee a comfortable living wage to all citizens, regardless of labor, as a baseline, alone with universal healthcare and housing protection and so on, allowing employment to be a choice free of duress, and forcing employers to actually make employment offers worth taking, rather than ones people feel obliged to accept due to the duress they face.

Free markets are unicorns, and it's about as practical to talk about milking either for profit.

[Machismo]

"They pay more" is not "they pay taxes proportional to the share of wealth and income they owe", sweaty.

They pay a higher percentage of their income, as you can see.

Or, did you also not read that, either

- - - Updated - - -

It's a trivially correct statement, in that free markets don't actually exist in the first place. There are myriad regulations and trade agreements affecting even international markets, not to mention the coercive practices of corporations themselves which also negatively affect the freedoms in the market.

Like, take the employment market. It's famously not a free market, and cannot be one, because it's a market fundamentally predicated on continuous one-sided duress, suppressing wages, to such an extent that government support is required to offset that, in every developed nation on the planet, if not through minimum wage laws directly, then through government support of broad unionization.

Free markets are unicorns, and it's about as practical to talk about milking either for profit.

Then, take it up with the person who said it... which was not me.

[Elegiac]

Great, tell that to the person who said that government-granted monopolies are operating in a free market.

I'm telling it to both of you: it's a dumb argument stemming from the fact Americans have a compulsion to tack "free" and "liberty" onto everything as superlatives without understanding what either of those things mean.

There are no free markets. There are fair markets, and there are unfair markets.