Classical Liberalism

[reverendjeremiah]

There is nothing against Equal opportunity there, Equal opportunity is about everyone being treated equally by the state, show me where I said for the state to do otherwise! Someone charging what they want for what they product has nothing to do with equal opportunity.

So we are treated equal by the state. And we all have an equal chance to become a monopoly. Once you get that monopoly, then equality is nothing more than a word that is spread by the plutocrats to keep the masses from overwhelming them. Do you not see how you are failing in this category? Now you have an equal opportunity to get screwed, as then your money no longer rewards or punishes the freemarket. A monopoly has been created. Monoploies WILL get your money, wether you need their product or not.

Monopolies aren't stealing my money by threat of imprisonment to spend it! That's the big difference. Also, in state monopolies common in Keynesianism there is absolutely no opportunity for competition, in the former case there is nothing to stop someone importing matches and undercutting the person who is charging high prices.

So imports stop a monopoly now? Honestly Void, you expect me to think that imports stop a monopoly? Like there is no such thing as multinational corporations, who took over when the Bush administration got into power and gave themselves tax rebates, tax exemptions, corporate welfare, and tax incentives to move their corporate headquaters off shore? Honestly Void, have you NOT been paying attention? what you just posted; "there is nothing to stop someone importing matches and undercutting the person who is charging high prices" is what they spread around for people to think they are still in a free market. CORPORATISTS DONT WANT A FREE MARKET. I dont think I can say that enough. They want to control the market. They want no bid conttracts with the government. Nothing about jail, but you give them money regardless.

Void, you are about to make me go Min on your ass.

So long as I can do so without breaking any laws, imposing my values on others or coercing or forcing them to do what I want it's none of your fucking business. You don't get to tell someone for what price they can sell their product for and I couldn't care less if you really really want it, you don't have a right to tell anybody what they can do with their stuff.

And I would agree with you if that was the case...but this is not the case. What is a monopoly if they are not breaking laws, rewriting laws to give them more profit, removing environmental laws, artificially inflating prices to screw everyone but the inside traders, imposing their values on others and a monopoly is synonamous with coercion and force. Fuck, my union (IBEW) was violently fought against by the corporatists. Are you telling me you honestly believe this tripe? That they dont impose their values on people?

Void, the problem is not with them setting their prices. I will say this again. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THEM SETTING THEIR PRICES. The problem is with them ARTIFICIALLY INFLATING their prices. Do you know the difference? One is in a free market setting. The other is in a corporate controlled setting, where if you are not an "insider", then you are the victim that will be robbed to make the inside few very rich.

Resorting to straw men already? I have NO RIGHT to force anybody to do what they don't want to, that absolutely includes taking people by force and selling them! Classical liberals like Adam Smith were the FIRST people against slavery, racism, sexism and the like in modern society. Classical Liberalism has always been against those things because it is an absolute violation of the rights of the individual.

Strawmen? The founding fathers of America were classical liberals to the exact letter of the definition. What did they do? Um..I dont know...Slavers?

Now you tell me they werent classical liberals.

Sae - what does TL mean?

Too Long: Didn't Read.

I am also a selfish person in that I am against something until I can benefit from it *enough*. This is a value judgement: my dislike of slavery. This is a value judgement: how much of a perceived benefit comes to me from slavery.

If the latter is a far greater value than my dislike for slavery: i will support slavery. I sincerely doubt that anyone can come up with that kind of funds when I *already* have more money than I really want. I'd put it to use, sure... but probably not for me.

Sometimes you give me the creeps Sae. Dont take it wrong, most of the times you make me laugh, but posts like this rub me the wrong way.