Libertarianism

[Libertarian]

So I know this forum is for "left" and "right" wingers are not welcome. But what about libertarians?

Left socially
Right economically

Sort of in the middle i suppose.

[Rjevan]

...

You seriously come to a forum for revolutionary leftists who, despite many disagreements, all have the common aims of an anti-capitalist working class revolution and of a communist society and ask if libertarians are welcome? Well, yes, you are welcome to post - in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

you can't have liberty with capitalistic property/labour relations. we understand this, hence why you are restricted.

[RGacky3]

They are right wingers in the sense that thye are pro-capitalist.

[Tommy4ever]

Libertarians are far right.

[Bronco]

I like how you firstly felt the need to tell us what Libertarianism is and secondly thought a forum of revolutionary leftists would welcome you

[Cody_2ZZ]

Libertarians aren't really far-right. If you imagine a 4-pointed graph with left and right on either side, respectively, and libertarian being at the top and statist at the bottom, that seems like it makes the most sense. I would post a link to the graph but my post count is too low :glare:

[Bronco]

Libertarians aren't really far-right. If you imagine a 4-pointed graph with left and right on either side, respectively, and libertarian being at the top and statist at the bottom, that seems like it makes the most sense. I would post a link to the graph but my post count is too low :glare:

That's basically just the political compass?

[Luís Henrique]

Libertarians aren't really far-right. If you imagine a 4-pointed graph with left and right on either side, respectively, and libertarian being at the top and statist at the bottom, that seems like it makes the most sense. I would post a link to the graph but my post count is too low :glare:

But that graph is actually a piece of libertarian propaganda, so it shouldn't be taken in serious.

The Left are the people who oppose inequality; the Right are the people who defend it. Libertarians are for inequality, so they are right wingers.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

Libertarians aren't really far-right. If you imagine a 4-pointed graph with left and right on either side, respectively, and libertarian being at the top and statist at the bottom, that seems like it makes the most sense. I would post a link to the graph but my post count is too low :glare:
That's very broadly true, but it's also not particularly helpful. The 4-point "political compass" serves as a rough sketch of mainstream politics, but that's about it. As soon as you introduce substantial deviations from mainstream bourgeois politics, it falls apart.

And guess what a forum entitled "Revolutionary Left" is largely comprised of?

[Libertarian]

So you guys have no sense of ideologies that represent social policies and idealogies that represent economic policies. They're all the same to you? Seems to me to be either paranoia or a lack of education about the basics of the polictical spectrum

[Libertarian]

...

You seriously come to a forum for revolutionary leftists who, despite many disagreements, all have the common aims of an anti-capitalist working class revolution and of a communist society and ask if libertarians are welcome? Well, yes, you are welcome to post - in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

So you guys aren't intelligent enough to debate your viewpoints?

I'm willing to debate anyone about their economic views in any area in a public debate. If anyone thinks they're intelligent enough to do this, pm me or post here and i'll create the debate

[Libertarian]

But that graph is actually a piece of libertarian propaganda, so it shouldn't be taken in serious.

The Left are the people who oppose inequality; the Right are the people who defend it. Libertarians are for inequality, so they are right wingers.

Luís Henrique


LMAO you're kidding me? If you're referring to economics, then fine. But socially? Libertarians are liberal.

[StockholmSyndrome]

So you guys have no sense of ideologies that represent social policies and idealogies that represent economic policies. They're all the same to you? Seems to me to be either paranoia or a lack of education about the basics of the polictical spectrum

lol

[Nanatsu Yoru]

I'm willing to debate anyone about their economic views in any area in a public debate. If anyone thinks they're intelligent enough to do this, pm me or post here and i'll create the debate
Okay. Make an opening statement, please.

[human strike]

Libertarianism always used to refer to the revolutionary left before some Americans, like I dunno, seriously misunderstood and got confused or something.

[Revolution starts with U]

Right. You say "am I accepted." They say "no, fuck off." You say "are you too stupid to debate."

... There's nothing to debate there. They answered your question. Please refrain from further insults that reflect YOU more anyone here. It's called projection.

[RGacky3]

I'm willing to debate anyone about their economic views in any area in a public debate. If anyone thinks they're intelligent enough to do this, pm me or post here and i'll create the debate


Go ahead, open a thread, or pick a topic and I'll debate you and essnecially prove that Capitalism makes no sense, but go ahead.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Oi oi, gacky, I was here first. I get to prove to him how wrong he is before you do :D

[Tim Finnegan]

So you guys have no sense of ideologies that represent social policies and idealogies that represent economic policies. They're all the same to you?
We don't understand the political and economic spheres as fundamentally distinct, no.


Seems to me to be either paranoia or a lack of education about the basics of the polictical spectrumWell, to be quite fair, it's not like they teach that particular libertarian (http://www.rantsnraves.org/images/smilies/fromgunner/emot-airquote.gif) hobby horse in high school PolSci, is it? You can't treat it as a universal canon, any more than we could blunder into a centrist forum and start nattering on about "bourgeois" and "proletarian" parties and expect everyone to go along with it.

[Die Rote Fahne]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?showform=&You+R+Here=8%2C-8&newname=We+r+around+here&newec=-8&newsoc=-8

This apporximately represents where you, as a Libertarian is, as opposed to us.

Most of us would be further down and further left.

You are a capitalist, you're views on gay marriage and marijuana don't mean shit.

[Kotze]

That's basically just the political compass?Since Cody_2ZZ said libertarians are displayed at the top, I believe he is talking about the Nolan Chart, which is pretty similar.
So you guys have no sense of ideologies that represent social policies and idealogies that represent economic policies. They're all the same to you?I don't believe anybody here doubts that for each position on such a chart people exist who have that outlook. But consequences don't necessarily correspond to intentions, and like Tim Finnegan said, we believe that the economic order strongly affects what is presented in such a graph as something separate. It would not surprise me if you believe that as well.

[Luís Henrique]

LMAO you're kidding me? If you're referring to economics, then fine. But socially? Libertarians are liberal.

And liberals are right wing. Sorry.

Libertarianism is not even an ideology such as liberalism, conservatism, or socialism are. It is a misunderstanding about the State, which is taken as something opposed to private property, when in fact it is what warrants the existence of private property. It is also a misunderstanding about private property, which is believed to be a relation between people and their properties, when if fact it is a relation between people (something is not mine because I "own" it, but because it is socially convened that only I, to the exclusion of all others, can enjoy it).

Luís Henrique

[durhamleft]

And liberals are right wing. Sorry.

Libertarianism is not even an ideology such as liberalism, conservatism, or socialism are. It is a misunderstanding about the State, which is taken as something opposed to private property, when in fact it is what warrants the existence of private property. It is also a misunderstanding about private property, which is believed to be a relation between people and their properties, when if fact it is a relation between people (something is not mine because I "own" it, but because it is socially convened that only I, to the exclusion of all others, can enjoy it).

Luís Henrique

Indeed- I have always seen the 'Anarcho-capitalist' wing of the right as fundamentally unfeasible, however the libertarian right do have a fairly coherent set of policies, and while I am completely opposed to their economic policies for reasons I don't think I need to get in to, I think it is a coherent, yet exploitative and immoral ideology.

The libertarian right in the UK however has never existed, with the further right you going being synonymous with increased authoritarianism.

[#FF0000]

So you guys aren't intelligent enough to debate your viewpoints?

Pretty much everyone who posts in OI is a socialist, for some reason. We debate and discuss plenty. We just don't want threads in the main forum to degenerate into "lol capitalism vs. communism".


So you guys have no sense of ideologies that represent social policies and idealogies that represent economic policies. They're all the same to you? Seems to me to be either paranoia or a lack of education about the basics of the polictical spectrum

1) Don't be a dick
2) It doesn't really matter if you're socially liberal if you still support capitalism. We are anti-capitalists.

[DinodudeEpic]

In my opinion, social and political issues are actually the most important part of socialist ideology. After all, you can't be a leftist socialist democracy if you have an authoritarian social policies.

As for the libertarian, would you accept worker cooperatives that are owned privately by the workers forming the basis of the economy? (They came straight from the workers privately.) There will still be private free markets. So, would you accept such a situation?

[RGacky3]

Oi oi, gacky, I was here first. I get to prove to him how wrong he is before you do :D

Oh common man, let the veteran have a go.

[Johnny Kerosene]

LMAO you're kidding me? If you're referring to economics, then fine. But socially? Libertarians are liberal.

You claim to be socially liberal. That explains why most Libertarians are Flag-waving Christian fundies.:glare:
There's a difference between wanting less government and actually being a libertarian.

[RGacky3]

That explains why most Libertarians are Flag-waving Christian fundies.:glare:


To be fair thats mostle just the tea-partiers, not proper libertarians.

[Libertarian]

You claim to be socially liberal. That explains why most Libertarians are Flag-waving Christian fundies.:glare:
There's a difference between wanting less government and actually being a libertarian.

Most Libertarians on DDO are:
Libertarians are pro abortion
pro gay marriage
pro stem cell research
pro drug legalization
con agricultural subsidies (or really any subsidies if you're austrian, i'm keynesian so i'm for subsidizing positive externalities)
atheist
evolution pro
etc.

I really don't think any are christian or flag waving for that matter.

[RGacky3]

But to argue that they are not REALLY socially liberal, thay would'nt oppose a Tillman style situation (town where the industry owner essnecially controlls everything) where HE makes the rules, which is really authoritarian.

The reason they are ok with that and not state controls is that tillman got his power from the market (i.e. money), rather than the people (i.e. democracy), so the real problem libertarians have is with democracy.

[Libertarian]

As for the libertarian, would you accept worker cooperatives that are owned privately by the workers forming the basis of the economy? (They came straight from the workers privately.) There will still be private free markets. So, would you accept such a situation?

If worker cooperatives received no unfair advantages from the government I'd be completely for it. If they are the most profitable and efficient and came to form the basis of the economy on that manner, then there is no argument to be had in my opinion.

[Libertarian]

But to argue that they are not REALLY socially liberal, thay would'nt oppose a Tillman style situation (town where the industry owner essnecially controlls everything) where HE makes the rules, which is really authoritarian.

The reason they are ok with that and not state controls is that tillman got his power from the market (i.e. money), rather than the people (i.e. democracy), so the real problem libertarians have is with democracy.

People vote with their money and most wouldn't vote for a Tillman style situation. I would boycott an industry that essentially controls everything.

[Libertarian]

You claim to be socially liberal. That explains why most Libertarians are Flag-waving Christian fundies.:glare:
There's a difference between wanting less government and actually being a libertarian.

I'm a minarchist with the keynesian belief that the government should tax negative externalities (pollution) and subsidies positive externalities that would have a difficult time being funded by the private sector (fireworks display, defense)

[Revolution starts with U]

Unfortunately, your vote, unless you're wealthy, really wouldn't matter.
Voting with the dollar is antithetical to proper democracy. Wherein we strive for 1 person 1 vote, the market can be 1 person NO votes, or 1 person 10m votes.

[Libertarian]

And liberals are right wing. Sorry.

Libertarianism is not even an ideology such as liberalism, conservatism, or socialism are.
Luís Henrique

Stopped reading here

[RGacky3]

People vote with their money, exactly, which means poor people get no votes and rich people get almost all the votes, so your essencailly for plutocracy, or money based authoritarianism.


I would boycott an industry that essentially controls everything.

How? You have to work, you have to live, you have to eat, sure you can move, but the same goes for states.


If worker cooperatives received no unfair advantages from the government I'd be completely for it. If they are the most profitable and efficient and came to form the basis of the economy on that manner, then there is no argument to be had in my opinion.

Property rights are a government privilege.

[Libertarian]

Unfortunately, your vote, unless you're wealthy, really wouldn't matter.
Voting with the dollar is antithetical to proper democracy. Wherein we strive for 1 person 1 vote, the market can be 1 person NO votes, or 1 person 10m votes.

Why would the wealthy want to be controlled by a corporation? Also why in this magical land is there only one corporation? I'm personally keynesian and against monopolies because they are economically inefficient. Perfect competition is the goal.

[Libertarian]

People vote with their money, exactly, which means poor people get no votes and rich people get almost all the votes, so your essentially for plutocracy, or money based authoritarianism.

How? You have to work, you have to live, you have to eat, sure you can move, but the same goes for statess

Property rights are a government privilege.

lol no i'm not for money-based authoritarianism. Since when is there only one corporation in each state? Other corporations in the other states would find it profitable to compete in all states. Why would anyone purchase anything/work from/for a company that negatively affected them?

Why in your magical land is there one evil corporation that does everything? It is not so in reality and no one, especially libertarians would be for that.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why would the wealthy want to be controlled by a corporation?
Idk, maybe you should ask them. It seems to me they rule "through" the corporation, rather than being ruled by it.

Also why in this magical land is there only one corporatio
I wasn't aware this was implied in my response.

[Revolution starts with U]

lol no i'm not for money-based authoritarianism.
Unfortunately, you are.

Since when is there only one corporation in each state?
I'm going to kindly ask you to disassemble this straw man.

Other corporations in the other states would find it profitable to compete in all states. Why would anyone purchase anything/work from/for a company that negatively affected them?
IDK why do people who work for and/or shop at Wal Mart complain about Wal Mart all the time? (Hint: they have no other choice... technically that's an answer, not a hint ;) )


Why in your magical land is there one evil corporation that does everything? It is not so in reality and no one, especially libertarians would be for that
I find your abundance of straw men disturbing.

[Libertarian]

Idk, maybe you should ask them. It seems to me they rule "through" the corporation, rather than being ruled by it.

I wasn't aware this was implied in my response.

I'm not aware of any corporation that effect those who do not have a business transaction with them.

Then if there is more than one corporation, then people would choose to either work for/buy things from the corporation that benefited them the most.
Corporations in order to hire workers and sell goods would have to offer less and less oppressive policies.

You seem to think that corporations seek to benefit the wealthy only through profits. Corporations seek to maximize profit for their owners. In order to maximize profit they must produce a good that produces more utility for the consumer than the cost of the item. This is why people buy things psychologically. So if corporations produce goods (including whatever social policies your talking about onto them) they will cost more than the price they are selling at and no one will buy.

Also in terms of food, people generally consume food at the same rate. Yes there is better quality food and there is lower quality food. But really you can only make something so good.

If anything corporations are fooling the wealthy more than anyone. I mean think about brands and restaurants.

A man can walk into a grocery store and have a pasta dinner with little preparation for 2 dollars. A man can also walk into a restaurant and have the exact same dinner for 20 bucks.

Same good, same taste, one pays more. That's the wealthy man who is being fooled by the corporation into paying way more for a good than it is worth.

[Libertarian]

Unfortunately, you are.
?
I'm going to kindly ask you to disassemble this straw man.

IDK why do people who work for and/or shop at Wal Mart complain about Wal Mart all the time? (Hint: they have no other choice... technically that's an answer, not a hint ;) )


I find your abundance of straw men disturbing.


There are plenty of other places to shop besides walmart (i.e. the internet), grocery stores, etc. Name a good that you can only get at walmart lol.

A strawman detracts from the original argument and is another argument that has no pertinence. I produced neither an argument or something irrelevant to the main argument. I asked why your example didn't comply with reality. It was a question that asked for an answer, not an inaccurate accusation of strawmanning.

I suggest you learn what a logical fallacy is before accusing others of making them.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not aware of any corporation that effect those who do not have a business transaction with them.
Then you don't understand the market. It's called competition. Every customer I have, is one less customer my competition doesn't.
I would also advise you to look up negative externalities.


Then if there is more than one corporation, then people would choose to either work for/buy things from the corporation that benefited them the most.
Corporations in order to hire workers and sell goods would have to offer less and less oppressive policies.
Only if we assume perfect competition (ceterus parabus or something, I don't remember) and/or full employment. Unfortunately that is an egg-headed assumption to make.


You seem to think that corporations seek to benefit the wealthy only through profits.
No I seem to think they seek to benefit themselves through profit.
Corporations seek to maximize profit for their owners. In order to maximize profit they must produce a good that produces more utility for the consumer than the cost of the item. This is why people buy things psychologically. So if corporations produce goods (including whatever social policies your talking about onto them) they will cost more than the price they are selling at and no one will buy.
The first part i get. The second part (last sentence) is incoherent. Perhaps you could rephrase that?


If anything corporations are fooling the wealthy more than anyone. I mean think about brands and restaurants.:lol: What?



A man can walk into a grocery store and have a pasta dinner with little preparation for 2 dollars. A man can also walk into a restaurant and have the exact same dinner for 20 bucks.
What stores are you shopping at? I pay for my food. And I can assure you, you cannot buy all the ingredients for a pasta dinner for $2. Noodles alone will cost you that much.


Same good, same taste, one pays more. That's the wealthy man who is being fooled by the corporation into paying way more for a good than it is worth.
I'm beginning to think you're delusional.

[Revolution starts with U]

There are plenty of other places to shop besides walmart (i.e. the internet), grocery stores, etc. Name a good that you can only get at walmart lol.
Again, straw man. And yes, I know exactly what it means. You're just making up your own arguments here.


A strawman detracts from the original argument and is another argument that has no pertinence.
Yup

I produced neither an argument or something irrelevant to the main argument.
Actually you did, unless you can show where it was implied in any of these arguments that people (myself included) were assuming there was only one corporation.

I asked why your example didn't comply with reality. It was a question that asked for an answer, not an inaccurate accusation of strawmanning.
No, it was a straw man.


I suggest you learn what a logical fallacy is before accusing others of making them
I suggest you stop making them if you don't want to be accused as such :thumbup1:

[Libertarian]

Then you don't understand the market. It's called competition. Every customer I have, is one less customer my competition doesn't.
I would also advise you to look up negative externalities.


Only if we assume perfect competition (ceterus parabus or something, I don't remember) and/or full employment. Unfortunately that is an egg-headed assumption to make.


No I seem to think they seek to benefit themselves through profit.
The first part i get. The second part (last sentence) is incoherent. Perhaps you could rephrase that?

:lol: What?



What stores are you shopping at? I pay for my food. And I can assure you, you cannot buy all the ingredients for a pasta dinner for $2. Noodles alone will cost you that much.


I'm beginning to think you're delusional.

Lol I pay for my food as well. It costs 1 dollar (sometimes 88 cents when on sale) for a pound of pasta. It costs 1 dollar (sometimes 5 for 4 sale) for a jar of spaghetti sauce. I just went last week. Where are you buying your groceries at? Of course my pasta and sauce are generic so if you're getting Ragu and Barilla you're going to pay more.

You completely ignored my analogy because you had no real answer for it.

As I've stated multiple times (before you brought up an externality) I'm a minarchist who believes in taxing negative externalities so that producing them becomes unprofitable and using the tax money to remove the negative externality or subsidize cleanup efforts in the case of pollution.

Since when do you have to have perfect competition in order to assume that every corporation is not a monopoly? Seriously?

Again it's not a strawman as you said/inferred that you can only buy certain goods at walmart. I said name the goods. You couldn't name them. Not a strawman. Of course I'm "making up my own arguments" wtf are you doing to get your arguments copying and pasting from some unknown computer-generated source?

You inferred that one would have to travel to another state in order to find another corporation. The implication that there is only one corporation in each state is naturally made by the reasoning that you would have to travel to another state to find another corporation to buy goods from.

[Libertarian]

I pay normally 66.66 cents a meal for a 1/3 pound of pasta and 1/3 jar of spaghetti sauce.

[Libertarian]

Reposting the analogy so it is answered instead of ignored:

If anything corporations are fooling the wealthy more than anyone. I mean think about brands and restaurants.

A man can walk into a grocery store and have a pasta dinner with little preparation for 2 dollars. A man can also walk into a restaurant and have the exact same dinner for 20 bucks.

Same good, same taste, one pays more. That's the wealthy man who is being fooled by the corporation into paying way more for a good than it is worth.

[Libertarian]

Also I'm nearly certain you have no clue what a strawman is judging by your application of the term.

[Revolution starts with U]

Lol I pay for my food as well. It costs 1 dollar (sometimes 88 cents when on sale) for a pound of pasta. It costs 1 dollar (sometimes 5 for 4 sale) for a jar of spaghetti sauce. I just went last week. Where are you buying your groceries at? Of course my pasta and sauce are generic so if you're getting Ragu and Barilla you're going to pay more.
I must have a higher cost of living here. It costs me 1.29 for noodles and somewhere around two dollars for sauce. Also, I put hamburger in my sauce, so that was another expense i was adding on.
I rarely buy anything name brand.


You completely ignored my analogy because you had no real answer for it.
Of course I have no answer for a straw man.


Since when do you have to have perfect competition in order to assume that every corporation is not a monopoly? Seriously?
Again, that's not what I said. Do you have problems with reading comprehension?


Again it's not a strawman as you said/inferred that you can only buy certain goods at walmart.
I said no such thing! Do you really have this bad of a crow problem that you need all these straw men?

I said name the goods. You couldn't name them. Not a strawman. Of course I'm "making up my own arguments" wtf are you doing to get your arguments copying and pasting from some unknown computer-generated source?
:lol:
If you would like I will come unbunch those panties for you. But only for a fee. ;)


You inferred that one would have to travel to another state in order to find another corporation.
I did no such thing! S-t-r-a-w M-a-n

The implication that there is only one corporation in each state is naturally made by the reasoning that you would have to travel to another state to find another corporation to buy goods from.
Coherency; just do it! :lol:

[Libertarian]

:Of course I have no answer for a straw man.

For it to be a strawman it has to be irrelevant to the topic. It's not. Thus no strawman.

[Libertarian]

:I did no such thing! S-t-r-a-w M-a-n

That was RGacky3. Mistaking you for another member when you stated similar things at the same time is not a strawman. It doesn't even resemble a strawman.

[Revolution starts with U]

If anything corporations are fooling the wealthy more than anyone. I mean think about brands and restaurants.

A man can walk into a grocery store and have a pasta dinner with little preparation for 2 dollars. A man can also walk into a restaurant and have the exact same dinner for 20 bucks.

Same good, same taste, one pays more. That's the wealthy man who is being fooled by the corporation into paying way more for a good than it is worth.
Yo, bro. This is merely advertsising and market forces. "Worth something" i.e. price-value is based on what people are willing to pay, not on what you think ti should be worth.
This is a very anti-market stance you have taken; calling market process "trickery." I have no problem with it. I, in fact, encourage it. But I'm sure you do... So do you realize you are against your own position :lol:
Comprehension; just do it!


Also I'm nearly certain you have no clue what a strawman is judging by your application of the term.
You seem to be certain of many things that are incorrect.

[Libertarian]

::I said name the goods. You couldn't name them. Not a strawman. Of course I'm "making up my own arguments" wtf are you doing to get your arguments copying and pasting from some unknown computer-generated source? :lol:
:If you would like I will come unbunch those panties for you. But only for a fee. ;)

So you essentially have no coherent response and are admitting you were incorrect in a backhanded way?

[Revolution starts with U]

For it to be a strawman it has to be irrelevant to the topic. It's not. Thus no strawman.

Exactly how is you saying we are assuming there is only one corporation per state (we did not assume anything like that) relevant to the topic.
I'm sorry brosephus, but I have explained why it is a straw man, and all you have said is "no it isn't." You're going to have to come a little more correct next time.


:

Mistaking you for another member when you stated similar things at the same time is not a strawman. It doesn't even resemble a strawman.

Do you want to read that sentence again? You basically just said "a straw man is not a straw man."
(Hint: you just said, in that sentence, that you mistook me for Gacky and attacked my arguments on Gacky's stances.)

[Libertarian]

:This is a very anti-market stance you have taken; calling market process "trickery." I have no problem with it. I, in fact, encourage it. But I'm sure you do... So do you realize you are against your own position

Lol well that's what marketing is. Anyone who attempts to say that it provides anything beneficial is lying to you. The only benefit it provides is fooling wealthy individuals into feeling as if they've purchased a superior product. It's certainly not anti-market. Most major corporations realize this and most take advantage of the wealthy individuals while giving same goods at lower prices to those that have smaller purses.

Look at plane tickets as another example. Is there really a difference from first class and business? LMAO no. They both go to the same place while one enjoys trivial benefits not worth the huge cost.

If you look at a supply and demand curve you'll noticed it's curved. Most corporations in order to maximize profit attempt to sell to the few at the top of the curve who will pay the most and then lower the prices for those who are willing to pay the 2nd most and so on. until they reach the cost of the item. They'll even sell at cost for the inherent benefit of taking business away from their competition.

So really corporations take advantage of those who can be most taken advantage of, the rich.

Another great example is video game systems. When they come out they're 300 some dollars but then fall in price until they reach cost. Same system brand new, just at a different time.

[hatzel]

For it to be a strawman it has to be irrelevant to the topic. It's not. Thus no strawman.

That's not really what a straw man is though, is it? Wikipedia says:


A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Wiktionary says:


An insubstantial concept, idea, endeavor or argument, particularly one deliberately set up to be weakly supported, so that it can be easily knocked down; especially to impugn the strength of any related thing or idea.
All of these straw men are 'relevant to the topic', they're just irrelevant to what the other person actually said. Your definition of a straw man is nothing but a straw man...I suggest you just drop this whole conversation :)

[Revolution starts with U]

::I said name the goods. You couldn't name them. Not a strawman.
Because I never said, or implied, or thought that Wal Mart was the only business in a given state, nor the only supplier of goods. Guess what that means... it was a man of straw.

So you essentially have no coherent response and are admitting you were incorrect in a backhanded way?
No, if I backhanded you, you'd feel it ;)

[Libertarian]

:Exactly how is you saying we are assuming there is only one corporation per state (we did not assume anything like that) relevant to the topic.

Gacky did so that's incorrect. It's relevant because if you're seeking to provide an example of how corporations are evil and only saying in this imaginary land that there is one corporation to choose from, then my best argument is to show how it's clearly not analogous to reality nor could it ever be. As the original argument was about a Tillman situation with no alternative as to find an alternative you had to travel outside the state.

[Libertarian]

:That's not really what a straw man is though, is it? Wikipedia says: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

There's a difference between mistaking the username of the person who posted the argument and creating an illusionary argument which was never created.

[Libertarian]

:Because I never said, or implied, or thought that Wal Mart was the only business in a given state, nor the only supplier of goods. Guess what that means... it was a man of straw.

I said:

Other corporations in the other states would find it profitable to compete in all states. Why would anyone purchase anything/work from/for a company that negatively affected them?

You Responded With:

IDK why do people who work for and/or shop at Wal Mart complain about Wal Mart all the time? (Hint: they have no other choice... technically that's an answer, not a hint ;) )

[Libertarian]

:they're just irrelevant to what the other person actually said

That's fine if I was purposefully making crap up for the sole purpose of proving him wrong. I just mixed up the usernames. Ergo not a strawman, a mistake.

[Revolution starts with U]

:This is a very anti-market stance you have taken; calling market process "trickery." I have no problem with it. I, in fact, encourage it. But I'm sure you do... So do you realize you are against your own position
You confuse me when you don't quote my posts. It makes it seem like you are trying to expropriate them as your own. Typical capitalist :D
(just kiddin man, calm down)


Lol well that's what marketing is. Anyone who attempts to say that it provides anything beneficial is lying to you. The only benefit it provides is fooling wealthy individuals into feeling as if they've purchased a superior product.
You do know Dollar General engages in marketing, correct?
Is there a raised eyebrow smiley? I guess this will have to do; :blink:


It's certainly not anti-market. Most major corporations realize this and most take advantage of the wealthy individuals while giving same goods at lower prices to those that have smaller purses.

Look at plane tickets as another example. Is there really a difference from first class and business? LMAO no. They both go to the same place while one enjoys trivial benefits not worth the huge cost.
Again, you trying to tell businesses and consumers what things are worth, that's very anti-market. What you are saying here, is basically true. Marketing is purposeful deceipt (at least most of the time. A barber shop with a sign saying it's a barber shop isn't. But most ads are.). But this is not something I would expect a market libertarian to say.

[Revolution starts with U]

There's a difference between mistaking the username of the person who posted the argument and creating an illusionary argument which was never created.
There really isn't. Whether or not your straw man was purposeful, it was still a straw man.


Other corporations in the other states would find it profitable to compete in all states. Why would anyone purchase anything/work from/for a company that negatively affected them?

You Responded With:

IDK why do people who work for and/or shop at Wal Mart complain about Wal Mart all the time? (Hint: they have no other choice... technically that's an answer, not a hint ;) )

Yes, do you see the straw man now? (HINT: I was responding to the bolded part of your statement, not the sentence before.)
Besides, that is not how it went at all. Perhaps you want to go back and reread the whole thread, as I just did, and you may better see where you began to start stuffing dried grass into old clothes.

[RGacky3]

lol no i'm not for money-based authoritarianism. Since when is there only one corporation in each state? Other corporations in the other states would find it profitable to compete in all states. Why would anyone purchase anything/work from/for a company that negatively affected them?

Why in your magical land is there one evil corporation that does everything? It is not so in reality and no one, especially libertarians would be for that.

What I'm saying is that Corporations will ultimately consolidate power, be it together, by themself, or whatever, economies of scale show this and diseconomies of scale are miniscule.

What I was proving is that you are actually NOT a libertarian because you would support a tillmat situation (it fits your theory), also its not a magical land it happened, but it was mostlye a philisophical argument to show that liberty is not what your interested in, its rule of money being over rule of man.

Also competition is Also the main force driving down wages, weakening the working and middle classes and thus limiting their actual choices, and making them more succeptable to control.


So really corporations take advantage of those who can be most taken advantage of, the rich.


By take advantage of you mean cater too, you used the example of plane tickets, you should be embarassed that you are trying to make this argument.

BTW most leaders of corporations are pretty damn rich.


IDK why do people who work for and/or shop at Wal Mart complain about Wal Mart all the time? (Hint: they have no other choice... technically that's an answer, not a hint ;) )

And they have no choice because Markets naturally consolidate power.


If anything corporations are fooling the wealthy more than anyone. I mean think about brands and restaurants.

A man can walk into a grocery store and have a pasta dinner with little preparation for 2 dollars. A man can also walk into a restaurant and have the exact same dinner for 20 bucks.

Same good, same taste, one pays more. That's the wealthy man who is being fooled by the corporation into paying way more for a good than it is worth.

Your talking consumption, and its a stupid argument, rich people can shop around for neccessities, poor people cannot, rich people get freebies from their corporations , poor people do not.

BTW, corporations ARE RUN BY THE WEALTHY.

BTW, do you really think rich people don't know thye can make a pasta dinner for 2 dollars? Like they are being fooled?

This is such an idiotic argument. Your trying to argue that corporations redistribute wealth downward, re-read your post and tell me that it does'nt look stupid.

No shit rich people pay more, because they have nicer stuff and more money, and that money goes back to them anyway in the form of compensation and profits. (when profits grow, wages go up last, first goes up profits, executive compensation and so on, when profits go down, jobs go first, executive compensation goes last.)

[RGacky3]

BTW, if your a real libertarian why don't you fight against corporate personhood, the bigest government program, so far all I see fighting that is people on the left, libertarians are busy fighting heating aid for poor people.

Just shows how libertarian they really are, and what their priorities are.

[Libertarian]

You confuse me when you don't quote my posts. It makes it seem like you are trying to expropriate them as your own. Typical capitalist :D
(just kiddin man, calm down)

.
You do know Dollar General engages in marketing, correct?
Is there a raised eyebrow smiley? I guess this will have to do; :blink:


Again, you trying to tell businesses and consumers what things are worth, that's very anti-market. What you are saying here, is basically true. Marketing is purposeful deceipt (at least most of the time. A barber shop with a sign saying it's a barber shop isn't. But most ads are.). But this is not something I would expect a market libertarian to say.

Lol it's what you should expect anyone who has a college education and has taken Marketing to say. It has nothing to do with your ideology. I don't want to end marketing or think it's all evil. I prefer to think of it as a useful tool in natural selection. Idiots who believe that brand name pasta at 3 dollars is more valuable because of the brand name than the generic at 1 dollar can go ahead and waste their money. I'm saving my 2 dollars in a Roth IRA with tax free compounding interest for 25 years and then traveling around the world with it.

Anyone who attempts to say that marketing is something that adds value to the product is an idiot. It adds imaginary happiness for fools which allows them to inflate the price of the good and sell it for more than they could otherwise.

Libertarians believe value is determined by supply and demand. We also recognize that some people demand the good more than others and thus value is a specific factor to the individual via utility (happiness). If one can inflate happiness in the purchase of the good for a particular market segment, one can raise the price of the good for that market segment.

[RGacky3]

No one is arguing that, and sure some rich people make dumb decisions, but if your arguing based on that, that because rich people have the ability to make dumb decisions with their money, and sometimes they do, that capitalism is rigged against the rich, then your an idiot beyond belief.

[Libertarian]

No shit rich people pay more, because they have nicer stuff and more money, and that money goes back to them anyway in the form of compensation and profits. (when profits grow, wages go up last, first goes up profits, executive compensation and so on, when profits go down, jobs go first, executive compensation goes last.)

So this terrible cycle of people spending themselves into wealth?

Bill Gates is making so much money because he's the one buying all of the Operating Systems he's making, thus giving him higher profits and more money.

[Libertarian]

that capitalism is rigged against the rich, then your an idiot beyond belief.

The rich can be taken advantage in dollar amount much more than the poor can while buying the same item with minute differences.

[Libertarian]

BTW, if your a real libertarian why don't you fight against corporate personhood, the bigest government program, so far all I see fighting that is people on the left, libertarians are busy fighting heating aid for poor people.

Just shows how libertarian they really are, and what their priorities are.

This really wasn't too coherent, what is your issue with corporate personhood? I would think you would be happy that they are being held to the same standards that a person would be in terms of taxation and for breaking the law.

[Libertarian]

Also competition is Also the main force driving down wages, weakening the working and middle classes and thus limiting their actual choices, and making them more succeptable to control.

Your talking consumption, and its a stupid argument, rich people can shop around for neccessities, poor people cannot, rich people get freebies from their corporations , poor people do not.

1. Describe how competition drives down wages. Please use math.

2. Describe how poor people have the inability to "shop around for necessities"

3. Describe the mystic "freebies" that only the rich can receive from corporations.

[RGacky3]

So this terrible cycle of people spending themselves into wealth?


This is a total strawman but I'll oblige you anyway

No its utalizing money to take advantage of market forces (one dollar one vote), and suppressing wages and putting prices as high as possible, and they extract surplus value from labor (productive sector, service sector), or they accumulate through dispossession (financial sector, natural recources sector), many ways.

BUt anyway, no one was making the argument that buying brand names makes people rich, stop being stupid.


Libertarians believe value is determined by supply and (monied) demand. We also recognize that some people demand (based on how much money they have) the good more than others and thus value is a specific factor to the individual via utility (happiness). If one can inflate happiness in the purchase of the good for a particular market segment, one can raise the price of the good for that market segment.

I fixed that for you, thats why there is no market for starving people, or for affordable housing, because poor people don't matter in market economies, and working people barely matter (becuase they are the ones doing the work).

[RGacky3]

This really wasn't too coherent, what is your issue with corporate personhood? I would think you would be happy that they are being held to the same standards that a person would be in terms of taxation and for breaking the law.

Because they arn't people, if someone brakes the law they should be responsible not some made up government institution (corporations), also people should pay taxes, and organizations.

This just shows how dishonest you are, your for government privilege, your for government institutions (for the rich).


The rich can be taken advantage in dollar amount much more than the poor can while buying the same item with minute differences.

So can a rich person, the poor person can ONLY by one thing, the rich person has a choice, your saying that because rich people have more choice they have some extra bad choices? So poor them? Again, your an idiot.


1. Describe how competition drives down wages. Please use math.

2. Describe how poor people have the inability to "shop around for necessities"

3. Describe the mystic "freebies" that only the rich can receive from corporations.

1. Competition is for 2 things, investment and consumers. Ivestment requires profit, people want a return, you have 2 main costs, variable cost (labor) and non variable cost Capital, you lower the variable cost you have higher profits, and with a relatively high unemployment you can cut variable costs without labor flight, also as an executive its not your pay, so your obviously gonne cut someone elses.

Also for the consumer end, less variable prices gives you more leway to lower prices if you need to (to take out competition for example), and with unemployment its not gonna make a difference in productivity.

Ultimately in the marco level it hurts because over time with people making less wages you have a slump in consumption and you either need to find or make new markets or you have a crash, but corporations due to competition cannot think macro level, they can only think singular profits and price.

2. Because they get a paycheck each month, most of that goes directly to rent and food, they can't buy the food then shop around because they need the food now, also they can't afford much so they have very little choice, they have to get the cheapest dispite other societal consequences, also most of them simply don't have the time or recources to shop around properly.

3. Liability, HUGE bonuses, free flights, huge compensation, and so on, I'm talking about the rich that are on the boards of corporations.

[RGacky3]

Some points that market libertarians don't get.

1. Consumers are no a block, there are non-important poor and the all important rich, so saying "what consumers want" is meaningless, because consumers are everyone and everyone has different economic power and funds, poor and rich are hugely diffferent when it comes to the type of consumer, yet libertarians talk of them as if they were one entity.

2. not all government is made equal, a loosely federated direct democratic society is hugely different in nature than an absolute monarchy, yet libertarians talk of "government" as if its a single entitty.

3. All consumers are also either capitalists or workers, its not like consumers are some mysterious third group, consumers get their money from either being capitalists or workers.

[Bronco]

Most Libertarians on DDO are:
Libertarians are pro abortion
pro gay marriage
pro stem cell research
pro drug legalization
con agricultural subsidies (or really any subsidies if you're austrian, i'm keynesian so i'm for subsidizing positive externalities)
atheist
evolution pro
etc.

I really don't think any are christian or flag waving for that matter.

What the fuck, how can you be keynesian? It's basically antithetical with Libertarianism, Rothbard even said "There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian". Keynesians are for big government, for increased spending and a large public sector, basically the things Libertarians always oppose

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Can I just say, that your system is not going to distribute the wealth downwards (of course I don't want to strawman, so of course correct me if this is not a position that you hold). As Gacky has pointed out, more competition will make for lower wages. If you are cutting prices, you have to cut spending somewhere, and that place is, of course, wages. This thought can be continued by pointing out that wages for the corporate upper-classmen are going to stay just where they are (or even raise, but that's an issue in and of itself). Your thoughts about the rich being tricked into buying more expensive goods/services are an obvious fallacy - the reason these people will be rich is because they are part of the corporate hierarchy, and by extension not "sheep," that is, people fooled by brand names and marketing. Moreover, I would also like to stress Gacky's point that consumers are either workers or capitalists, workers of course being the obvious majority.
I'm the last person to start cursing and namecalling, and I encourage EVERYONE to attempt to maintain a high standard of discussion here :thumbup1:

[Korashk]

The reason they are ok with that and not state controls is that tillman got his power from the market (i.e. money), rather than the people (i.e. democracy),
He got his power from the individuals who voluntary chose to do business with him using the market as a means. He did not receive his power from the market, as the market is not an entity capable of granting power in and of itself.


so the real problem libertarians have is with democracy.
I'd agree with that. Democracy is just having a bunch of people unjustly forcing you to do things instead of having a few people unjustly forcing you to do things. Both are equally bad, they just differ in scale.

[RGacky3]

He got his power from the individuals who voluntary chose to do business with him using the market as a means. He did not receive his power from the market, as the market is not an entity capable of granting power in and of itself.


His power is that he has money, which could have been through various means, "voluntary" is a funny word that libertarians use, like a thirsty person in a desert voluntarily signing over all he has for a drink of water, for a guy that has all the water.

Either way, however he got his power, the fact is it is based on money, not consensus.


I'd agree with that. Democracy is just having a bunch of people unjustly forcing you to do things instead of having a few people unjustly forcing you to do things. Both are equally bad, they just differ in scale.

Sure, and Capitalism is rich people unjustly forcing you to do things, Capitalism in practice, is just as bad as any other type of tyranny, and much much worse than democracy, because democracy spreads the power out (one person one vote), Capitalism concentrates it (in the form of wealth).

But just admit it, your in favor of plutocracy over democracy.

[Korashk]

IDK why do people who work for and/or shop at Wal Mart complain about Wal Mart all the time? (Hint: they have no other choice... technically that's an answer, not a hint ;) )
How exactly do people not have any choice but to shop at Wal-Mart? Anecdotally, there are at least 10 other places in the city where I live besides Wal-Mart to shop for the same goods one would find at Wal-Mart. Two are within a five-minute walk of Wal-Mart, and all are within a 10 minute drive with traffic allowing.

Maybe you're referring to the fact that Wal-Mart is usually cheaper than these other places. In which case I'm wondering why exactly you think this is bad?

[RGacky3]

Maybe you're referring to the fact that Wal-Mart is usually cheaper than these other places. In which case I'm wondering why exactly you think this is bad?

Well, because its cheaper due to cutting wages, which is not only morally wrong but economically, because you cut wages, and production costs, then your consumer base drops, demand drops, and ultimately you loose your market.

Anecdotally does'nt matter, also the way Capitalism is set up is that the most cut throat buisinesses win, and the buisinesses that ultimately cause huge systemic risk are the ones that win, which is why Capitalism (throw out all the moral stuff, not that its not important, but its been gone over), is unsustainable and a terrible system even for efficiency.

BTW, where cost is NOT being cut is at the top.

I'd be all for cutting prices if the cost savings were comming from people getting excess pay (executives), and not from people doing the actual labor, and making up the actual demand demographic.

BTW, maybe people cannot choose to not shop at wallmart because market forces have driven down wages over the last 30 years.

For all the pro-markets talk libertarians use they have suprisingly little knowledge of how markets actually work.

[Korashk]

His power is that he has money, which could have been through various means, "voluntary" is a funny word that libertarians use,
How else could he have gotten the money besides having other people giving it to him voluntarily (in return for goods, services, etc.) or stealing it?

I can't comprehend why a person would have a problem with the former and I consider the latter immoral and deserving of retribution.


Either way, however he got his power, the fact is it is based on money, not consensus.
He only has money because people chose to give it to him, thereby gaining something worth more personally to them than said money. I don't care if a bunch of other people would rather I do something different with property I've obtained without resorting to force or coercion.


Sure, and Capitalism is rich people unjustly forcing you to do things,
I'd disagree with the unjustly and forcing part, but we're never going to come to a consensus on that one. Best to drop it.


Capitalism in practice, is just as bad as any other type of tyranny,
People historically and currently dwelling in lands more capitalist than not have had it better in terms of freedom and prosperity than the opposite. China and the former Soviet Union spring to mind (note, not implying that these places were bad because of communism/socialism in practice, merely that their governments were and are more tyrannical)


But just admit it, your in favor of plutocracy over democracy.
No, I favor the voluntary interaction of individuals as overseen by a night watchman government funded by user fees. Which is in fact pretty much the only economic model (that I know of) that doesn't lead to plutocracy save ideal stateless communism.

[RGacky3]

How else could he have gotten the money besides having other people giving it to him voluntarily (in return for goods, services, etc.) or stealing it?

I can't comprehend why a person would have a problem with the former and I consider the latter immoral and deserving of retribution.


Because it was gotten based on the false premis of property rights, which are not "voluntarily" agreed upon, they are forced.


He only has money because people chose to give it to him, thereby gaining something worth more personally to them than said money. I don't care if a bunch of other people would rather I do something different with property I've obtained without resorting to force or coercion.


All property is obtained by the threat of force, if you "own" an apple farm because it was passed down to you from your grandpa, the only reason I won't take an apple is because I'll be arrested, you might have never seen that farm, but you have it due to enforced property laws.

If I buy an apple because I'm hungry, its not "voluntary," only in the sense that you have property laws on your side.

But again, your not refuting my claim, his power comes from money and not consensus. So your problem is NOT with power, or with authority, its with where you get it from, you want it to come from money, correct?


People historically and currently dwelling in lands more capitalist than not have had it better in terms of freedom and prosperity than the opposite. China and the former Soviet Union spring to mind (note, not implying that these places were bad because of communism/socialism in practice, merely that their governments were and are more tyrannical)


China and the soviet Union were tyrannical, but that had nothing to do with socialism. However if you compare social-democracies to more free-market areas, you have a trend, social-democracies do better, Norway, does WAY WAY better than the United States, and Iceland, Argentina when it adopted free market policies collapsed, as did Chile, most of Latin America when it experimented with being less a democratic economy and more of a market one failed.

You have a clear historical trend, even in europe, compare Germany and Norway (with relatively strong social-democracies and unions), to iceland, the UK and so on.


No, I favor the voluntary interaction of individuals as overseen by a night watchman government funded by user fees. Which is in fact pretty much the only economic model (that I know of) that doesn't lead to plutocracy save ideal stateless communism.

It does lead to plutocracy and we've proven it here in this thread, the basic fact that the more money you have the more you can make thus the more power you have.

You've not disproved that, you've just defended it, meaning your defending plutocracy.

[durhamleft]

the thing i don't understand about neo-liberalism, all the moralist bollocks aside is this:

If you have Thatcherism, you have neo-liberal economics, but enforced with the strong state (neo-conservatism). Neo-liberals of the libertarian right support free markets and the small state, ie greater liberty. However, surely the only way many of the neo-liberal economic policies can be implemented is with coercion; eg. in the UK scrapping away of trade union rights etc.

How can you have both? surely if you are to have pure unadulterated free market capitalism you need a strong state to enforce it.

[Dumb]

Again it's not a strawman as you said/inferred that you can only buy certain goods at walmart...You inferred that one would have to travel to another state in order to find another corporation.

I believe the word you're looking for is "implied."

I'm seldom a stickler for word choice, but what's a commie to do when you're being so patronizing? :lol:

[LOLseph Stalin]

My ex went from authoritarian socialist to agorist(which is a libertarian/an-cap ideology) and insists he's left-wing which I never really understood. I always thought left wing expanded from neo-liberalism to communism, not purist capitalistic ideologies. :confused:

[#FF0000]

My ex went from authoritarian socialist to agorist(which is a libertarian/an-cap ideology) and insists he's left-wing which I never really understood. I always thought left wing expanded from neo-liberalism to communism, not purist capitalistic ideologies. :confused:

Neo-Liberalism isn't what you think it is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)

But yeah, political spectrums are sorta subjective. We certainly wouldn't consider it left-wing but he does for some dumb reason. Who knows.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Neo-Liberalism isn't what you think it is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)

But yeah, political spectrums are sorta subjective. We certainly wouldn't consider it left-wing but he does for some dumb reason. Who knows.

He's confusing anyway and confused me for awhile, making me into a super-zionist for awhile(even when I was islamic. xD). Thankfully he's in Israel now and hopefully there to stay. He might become a politician regardless of where he is though, yikes!

[Bronco]

My ex went from authoritarian socialist to agorist(which is a libertarian/an-cap ideology) and insists he's left-wing which I never really understood. I always thought left wing expanded from neo-liberalism to communism, not purist capitalistic ideologies. :confused:

Well Konkin styled Agorism as "the movement of the Libertarian Left" for a couple of reasons. They're influenced heavily by Rothbard but more from his 60's & early 70's days when he aligned himself with the left believing it more in line with his Libertarian ideology. It was only later he considered himself right-wing and became a bit of a joke with his alliances with Lew Rockwell & Ron Paul in the 80's and 90's. They also say they're left-wing because that's the side of the French assembly that Classic Liberals sat on.

Idealogically though they are basically right wing, there arent any major differences between Agorists & An-Caps, although Agorism's probably considered more revolutionary because they support using counter-economics to try and undermine and eventually destroy the state.

[Bardo]

Why would anyone purchase anything/work from/for a company that negatively affected them?


Let's stick with the Walmart example. There's pretty much a Walmart in every town. Where small grocery stores, hardware stores, clothing stores, record stores, ect used to be able to compete freely with each other, there is now a Walmart that single handedly competes with them all. They have really low prices that the small stores can't compete with. Why would someone buy a hammer at "Jack's Hardware" for $20 when they can buy one from Walmart for $14.99? So Jack's Hardware can't compete and goes out of business.

Now, as there is a Walmart in every town they're going to need alot of help. Seeing that they are driving the smaller retail shops out of business in the area, it would make sense that Walmart would replace those jobs right? When you get a job at walmart you're going to be making minimum wage, but hey where else are you going to go? They keep wages low and stay understaffed. Ask anyone who works at Walmart if their store is understaffed and I will bet you anything they say yes.