Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 4, 2024, 6:59 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Classical Liberalism
#11
RE: Classical Liberalism
void Wrote:We want quality in what sense? Equal treatment and opportunity or equal outcome?

Of course it isnt about equal outcome. It is about equal oportunity. According to your next quote, you make it very obvious that you are neither for equal outcome OR equal oportunity. According to your own words someone can make a product, monopolise on it, and even gloat over inflated prices. Funny how you rail against keynesian policies, yet you see no problem in artifically inflating prices, something that keynesian policies put into practice and has led to America's current economic woes.

void Wrote:Awww, you want cheap matches? Do you have some right to a particular material product? If I'm the only match game in town I can charge whatever I like, I have no obligation to give you matches for the price you want! Nothing to stop you from creating a rival company and trying your luck.

You really need to look up monopolies of the turn of the 20th century Void. You really have no idea how they crushed anything that even resembled competition. And now that you have your monopoly, why would you still be a libertarian? You would do everything you could to hold your power. You would CEASE being libertarian and become a plutocrat, with cleptocratic tendencies. You would no longer care about ANYTHING other than your corporation. A new corporatist is born, who care of nothing other than his power hold, what he can take, and what he has. The allegiance is now to the corporation. To greed. You will do everything in your power to squash any perceived threat to your hold.
Reply
#12
RE: Classical Liberalism

Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#13
RE: Classical Liberalism
Classical liberalism = SLAVERS. Someone who is willing to steal people and sell them to other people. Some Classical Liberals would be more than happy to inpregnate a slave and sell their own children into slavery just so that he (Classical liberals are usually males) can make an easy profit.
Reply
#14
RE: Classical Liberalism
(April 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Classical liberalism = SLAVERS. Someone who is willing to steal people and sell them to other people. Some Classical Liberals would be more than happy to inpregnate a slave and sell their own children into slavery just so that he (Classical liberals are usually males) can make an easy profit.

Thank you for the TL: DR ^_^

Who wants to bet that the next thing posted in response is going to be all about the american black slave trade as they try to undermine wage slavery by comparing it to racial slavery? Tiger
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#15
RE: Classical Liberalism
Voids intent declares him guilty. Look at how he mocked me of the price of matches. What is his intent? Apparently he has no problem becoming the lord of matches. If so, then so be it.. but dont try to fool me with that "libertarian" crap at the same time. If even ONE person can lord it over on anything, then libertarianism has been destroyed.

So which one is it Void? Libertarian or Plutocrat?

It sure looks like you are against keynesian economics, unless it means you will benefit from it.

Sae - what does TL mean?
Reply
#16
RE: Classical Liberalism
(April 8, 2011 at 6:22 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
void Wrote:We want quality in what sense? Equal treatment and opportunity or equal outcome?

Of course it isnt about equal outcome. It is about equal oportunity. According to your next quote, you make it very obvious that you are neither for equal outcome OR equal oportunity. According to your own words someone can make a product, monopolise on it, and even gloat over inflated prices. Funny how you rail against keynesian policies, yet you see no problem in artifically inflating prices, something that keynesian policies put into practice and has led to America's current economic woes.

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 produce has nothing to do with equal opportunity.

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.

Quote:You really need to look up monopolies of the turn of the 20th century Void. You really have no idea how they crushed anything that even resembled competition. And now that you have your monopoly, why would you still be a libertarian? You would do everything you could to hold your power. You would CEASE being libertarian and become a plutocrat, with cleptocratic tendencies. You would no longer care about ANYTHING other than your corporation. A new corporatist is born, who care of nothing other than his power hold, what he can take, and what he has. The allegiance is now to the corporation. To greed. You will do everything in your power to squash any perceived threat to your hold.

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.

"Bu..bu..but it's in our best interests to do so", right? I couldn't care less. It's in my best interests to steal all of your stuff, I can sell it and get that new Guitar I want and have a nice holiday. Something being in the best interests of the individual or group DOES NOT give them the moral aithority to take it by threat of force!
.
Reply
#17
RE: Classical Liberalism
Reverend Wrote: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.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#18
RE: Classical Liberalism
(April 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Classical liberalism = SLAVERS. Someone who is willing to steal people and sell them to other people. Some Classical Liberals would be more than happy to inpregnate a slave and sell their own children into slavery just so that he (Classical liberals are usually males) can make an easy profit.

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.

(April 8, 2011 at 7:29 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Voids intent declares him guilty. Look at how he mocked me of the price of matches. What is his intent? Apparently he has no problem becoming the lord of matches. If so, then so be it.. but dont try to fool me with that "libertarian" crap at the same time. If even ONE person can lord it over on anything, then libertarianism has been destroyed.

You can start your own match company if you don't like my prices, ANYONE can. But as long as nobody is willing to make or import matches to compete don't think you have the right to tell me what to sell my stuff for. If I use force or threats of violence to stop someone setting up competition then fucking lock me up!

That doesn't make me the "Lord of matches" it makes me a person who is allowed to charge whatever the fuck I like for MY stuff.

Quote:So which one is it Void? Libertarian or Plutocrat?

You need to cut the strawman bullshit, I'm a strict individualist.

Quote:It sure looks like you are against keynesian economics, unless it means you will benefit from it.

What the fuck??? Where, at what point, ANYWHERE, did I advocate Keynesianism?
.
Reply
#19
RE: Classical Liberalism
Quote: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.
Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.
(April 8, 2011 at 8:21 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:
Reverend Wrote: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.
Reply
#20
RE: Classical Liberalism
(April 8, 2011 at 6:22 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: According to your own words someone can make a product, monopolise on it, and even gloat over inflated prices.
Consumers always set the prices for companies. If the prices are too high, consumers will not purchase your product, and you pave the way for competitors to emerge with lower prices to challenge you in the market. Companies always adjust their prices with regard to the complexity of the product they are making, the demand in the market, and the prices of their competitors. Companies that don't go under very quickly. This is very simple economics, which for some reason you are not getting (or refusing to get).
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)