Classical Liberalism

[reverendjeremiah]

Joseph A. Schumpeter attributes this supposed shift in liberal philosophy (from classical liberal to modern liberal) to the nineteenth century expansion of the franchise to include the working class. Rising literacy rates and the spread of knowledge led to social activism in a variety of forms. Social liberals called for laws against child labor, laws requiring minimum standards of worker safety, laws establishing a minimum wage and old age pensions, and laws regulating banking with the goal of ending cyclic depressions, monopolies, and cartels. Laissez faire economic liberals considered such measures to be an unjust imposition upon liberty, as well as a hindrance to economic development, and, as the working class in the West became increasingly prosperous, they also became more conservative.[65]

Another regularly asserted contrast between classical and modern liberals: classical liberals tend to see government power as the enemy of liberty, while modern liberals fear the concentration of wealth and the expansion of corporate power.[66]

[/wikipedia - classical liberal]

---

Consumers always set the prices for companies.

Bull crap. Not withstanding that Void has been arguing all this time that companies can set their prices any way they want and I am a cry baby for not liking it. What you say is idealism, not reality.

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.

Do you think Blackwaters "contractor" prices are too high? Well, too bad. No bid contracts with insiders force you and me to pay their price. So how can our spending power (which is gone in this situation) effect them?

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.

So therefore you get rid of the competitor, ensuring your demand in the market is totalitarian, and toss your problems on the consumer. They are now forced to eat it and work to make it. You always make sure they have just enough money to keep ever so slightly afloat, living pay check to pay check so you get that money back from them and use it against them. Now tell me that isnt what most of the world corporations do. Is that not libertarian? Or do libertarians oppose libertarian economics? Or, should I say, you and Void oppose it (because you are "real" libertarians) and those "fake" libertarians do such things.

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).

No. That isnt modern economics (which is the topic, right? Classical liberalism in a modern world?). Modern economics is about corporatism, plutocracy, and clepto theivery. Modern corporatists, who have rallied the modern libertarian movement, are the ones running the keynesian economic model. Why? Because, for the select insiders, it guarentees success. It gives the corporations all of the profit, and the masses all of the risk. The bankers want it. The bankers use it. Are you trying to tell me the bankers ARENT libertarians? Are you trying to tell me that bankers DO NOT want as much freedom to do what they want? Well, they want this economic system.

Am I refusing to get this simple economic system down?

[theVOID]

How isn't it at the expense of someone else to have more than them? It absolutely necessarily is. It means that while I'm riding high up here on easy street: some other person here is starving for money that they otherwise might have if I did not have it.

Because it's not a zero sum game! This is the biggest false flag in any argument for collectivism, that all wealth comes from a fixed source of existent value and if anyone has more than someone else they must have done something untoward to get it - It's completely FALSE.

Wealth can be created from both thin air and lesser wealth, I created wealth from thin air yesterday, I designed a new UI and jQuery Library, I can sell that and make money. Does that mean I have stolen money from poor people elsewhere? Fuck no it does not. I created wealth - I did not TAKE it from someone who has less than me.

Generally the rich become so by selling things at a grossly inflated price to the poor masses, making them poorer for things that they should have had in the first place for free (within reason).

No, they sell their stuff to people at prices that they agree to pay. If you were worse off by buying my products then you wouldn't do it!

Free? Fuck that. You don't get my stuff for free just because you want it! Suppose I make bread, do you get that for FREE? MY productivity and financial risks, management and marketing, MY wealth, you don't get a scrap of it unless I agree to trade it with you for a price you agree to pay for it.

Having a job isn't beneficial. I'll dare to defend a rational position any day. Slavery is slavery whether it is hidden as 'wage' slavery or not.

Oh what nonsense. Why don't we just call hunger "Hunger slavery" because after all you are forced to do things to satisfy your hunger. What a slave you are! Why can't all our food just come without effort so we can stop being hunger slaves?

You need to eat, you want to buy nice things, you need to trade your productivity (time and skills) for those of someone else, what a slave! Yeah having a job, a means by which to sell your productivity, to trade it for the things that other people produce with their productivity, so you can eat and have things you desire, is such a slave fest!

This absolute pittance that they have 'allowed' you to have is very likely barely enough for you to get by, plenty can't even afford an emergency fund.

Allowed? Pffft, you 'agree' to work for a wage, you don't have to work for this person at this place, you don't have to work at all if you don't want to, but you're a hunger slave who needs to eat and a desire slave who needs to get her WoW fix, are you a Blizzard slave too?

They have taken from you a good third of your days to do menial tasks for them *just so that you can survive*. Not many of us happen to have skill to sell off, infact most markets are oversaturated to the point that even *college graduates* cannot find well paying jobs, and sometimes can't even find a job at all.

No, they did not TAKE it, you agreed to trade for it. Nobody is forcing you to do so. Before industry you were forced to get up early and trudge around herding animals, miking cows, chopping wood, preparing food *Just so you could survive*. What a bunch of labor slaves our ancestors were!

So they should have studied something else rather than what they wanted to do. Say you want to be a Musician but there is more supply than demand and your chances of finding work are slim? Tough shit.

This entire capitalistic system that turns humans into cogs and gives them an illusion that they are being rewarded for working benefits none of the cogs: they will absolutely die if they do not take a job when they see it. What keeps those bottom scrapers from starving to death in america? Socialistic systems such as soup kitchens.

And before industry you would absolutely die if you didn't hunt or raise animals! You could starve for days on end because you couldn't find a kill - Fucking hunger slaves, right?

Soup Kitchens are an example of Civil Society, they are funded through private altruism. Most people have an altruistic side, rich or not, they give money to charity because they care about people. I have no problem promoting that attitude, I will campaign for altruism any day, I give some of the fuck all money I have to Oxfam, when I have more money I'll undoubtedly give more - What I will NOT do is force people to give money by threat of imprisonment. If someone doesn't care I have no right to take from them because I do - It's a complete imposition of values - completely contrary to Individualism.

Is it really so absurd to you that people who try to buck slavery usually fail and sometimes die?

It's not slavery, it's work. Oh, you don't want to have a job and you suffer for it? What the fuck did you expect? Nobody is forcing you to work, and using the word "slavery" does nothing but demean what real slaves went through, forced to work without consent or reward, being beaten when they were not, no choices, no freedoms - NONE of that applies to a job.

Willing to trade? Hahaha!

How about instead 'desperately accept to keep their family off the streets' or 'immediately take up before it's gone'? They are slaves to a system, what can you expect them to do when someone "offers" a job? It's not unlike throwing a starving dog a chicken nugget. The lion's share is held by the master of his castle, and all of his dogs are kept alive only because the master wants a gourmet party daily amongst his peers.

Oh fuck off, your job gives you food and shelter and toys for the children and luxury items and a car etc, if they're really struggling then contact a charity for aid, there are plenty of people willing to voluntarily give some of their wealth to help those in need.

How is paying you enough to have a relatively decent life "throwing you a chicken nugget". Are you paid in soup and bread or do you get to buy shit you want? Don't get as much money as you like? Well sorry, but your skills just aren't in that much demand. Make yourself in more demand and people will pay you more.

So what if the person who runs the company makes more? They generally work longer hours, have all the high demand skills, take all the risks, own the vast majority of the liabilities and own the property being traded - They should get paid more. The lions share though? You're deluded, the profit margin for a major supermarket is about 4%, that's not the lions share, you might make a good income relative to a single shelve stocker but so what? It's not unfair, it's not theft, it's not exploitation and it's not slavery - It's the reality of some people and skills being in more demand that others, I couldn't care less if you don't like that.

The crime that is done by this 'rich people hiring poor people' scheme is that the rich are robbing the poor blind and keeping them a shadow of life that to retain they *must* turn to the rich thieves. This entire system is based on fucking greed, how the hell can it get *less* moral? The detriment to the poor is phenomenal, across the entire board. p

Robbing? Bullshit. Come to work and I'll give you $ = robbery? Not at all. Life is tough, some people are worth less than others. Get used to it. Yeah people NEED jobs, because we NEED to eat. If you want to call anything 'slavery' it is our being slaves to our needs and desires, but like I said, calling it slavery does nothing but belittle what actual slaves went through.

It is true: some cogs are special little cogs in that they aren't quite as common as the other cogs. But don't for a moment think that they are not replaceable, and easily at that. Doesn't matter if the replacement is slightly rough around the edges: It'll still get the bottom line done.

Cogs in a machine is a collective analogy, what I am proposing is individualism, looking at individuals like they don't matter, like they're part of a collective with it's own goals, doesn't work.

What does replaceable have to do with it? Some skills are in more demand than others, people are willing to trade more for those skills, the better the price you offer for your skills the higher the chance of a successful trade.

'As long as', you know that entire argument is based on having a powerful government capable of enforcing rules that it makes, do you not? What's to stop the rich from turning the masses into full-time serfs, the use of deadly force to silent an outspoken individual, not upholding their side of a contract as they use you and throw you away... if there is no powerful government to respond to such?

*STRAWMAN ALERT*

No government is NOT what I advocate. I am for policing and much tougher sentences for people who use force fraud, coercion or negligence. What is to stop people from turning the masses into full time serfs? The fact that they aren't allowed to force anyone to do anything they don't want or neglect their responsibilities as agreed in the terms of the trade (employment contract) and if they try either the government and the police can fine or arrest them!

This is the straw man you inevitably resort to, completely ignoring the most crucial point that I have espoused time and time again - Individual freedoms - Someone killing you is violating your right to life, if someone is found guilty of it then lock hem up, someone violating a contract is violating the agreement that two people have willingly come to - Those things are ILLEGAL.

You are so beyond ridiculous when you think that slaves have appreciable 'personal freedoms'... what keeps the rich from increasing their profits even higher is that there is a government with a massive military capable of retaliating. Remove that, and america is gone like a rowboat in a midatlantic storm as surely as elephants from poaching.

NOT SLAVES.

What stops the rich from creating or accumulating more wealth? As long as they don't use force, fraud, coercion or neglect their responsibilities then NOTHING, they can get as much money as they like. If they do any of those things then the government and police and get involved.

On the other hand, I agree with the government curing the national debt by ripping almost everything from the rich. Don't agree with keeping poor businesses around when it is quite capable of splitting the money it used to keep them afloat into those who had trusted it in the bank in the first place.

Good, because taxing the rich double what they do now would get you barely a fraction of the way out of the years spending, taking EVERYTHING wouldn't do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

What gives you the right to take a business and dissolve it? That's authoritarian BS. Should we promote the idea to be charitable and give people good wages? Yes. The tools of the intellectual is persuasion and argument, convince people to take up your position, NOT to use group thuggery to impose your values on others and threaten them with imprisonment if they don't.

But then, I'm somewhat pragmatic. I see resource, I take resource. It really is the path of least resistance. Unfortunately, our government is the puppet of the rich people it should be gutting.

You're a thief, in other words. I see the resource I try and persuade the owner to trade it for a good price or give some of their wealth to those who need it, I don't storm in with my death squad and take it by force.

Nobody needs to prosper into the hundreds of millions.

Sure, nobody needs most of what they have. Good reason to steal it? No.

And we have multibillion corporations.

Most of whom are so rich because they are propped up by taxpayers!

There is plenty of a motivation to increase the power of the greater machine and to be rewarded for it by a reputation and a greater allowance. Only greedy self-centered people build things for other people solely for themselves. I would rather not have any of those people in a community than embrace their greed.

Well tough, Nazi Sae, you don't get to order society to match your values and kick them out when they think differently or are greedy, even when they are doing nothing to thwart the freedoms of others. We don't have to "embrace" their greed either, We can praise people for selflessness, condemn them for being selfish, reward them when they do good and punish them when they violate our freedoms, but beyond that it's all authoritarianism, imposing your values on others, just another police state rounding up those who think differently.

American workers have a decent quality of life? Maybe by your low standards, but I'm hard to impress. Now *I* have a decent quality of life. More than I deserve, frankly. And most americans do not live so easily as I. I was born in a fairly rich environment, I know people, and I've had a well paying job all my life that takes but an 10th of my life. What I see of fellow americans in this area is that many of them bring home either minimum wage or something I consider to be barely past that. I know so many poor people here that I am absolutely aghast of it. Perhaps I'm biased and the area in which i live is just super poor. Somehow, i doubt it is any better for many people living in hundreds of times more crowded places

I'm for promoting good lives for all people, I've been an employer in the past and I've paid well above market value, I give to charity, I promote altruism, but I will NOT use force to get my way or impose my values! The tools of the intellectual is persuasion, not force. And I have no right to impose my values on anyone else - That is why I support free markets and civil society, Individualism is the single most important aspect of my worldview.

Hmmm... did you know that I didn't borrow anything at all from anyone? I spend plenty, sure, but I almost never let myself drop into a deficit.

Good, now go encourage people to do the same.

I have spent slightly more than i made last year, granted... but luckily most of what I bought is electronic things that are staying with me. I won't be making a similar array of purchases next year (I wont even have an Xbox 360 or PS3 to spend money on).

Good for you.

Agree with the last sentence here. American adult daycare is more of a reward than anything as I see it.

A reward at the expense of others though, not out of charity but taken by force.

Anyway, more to the point: i very highly doubt that the investments made by all of the poor people in the banks comes even close to those made by the rich.[/hide]

I doubt that, considering your government took your money and dumped it into your banks.

---

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.

You don't get it. Equality has nothing to do with you getting to decide what other people to with their resources because YOU want them, Equality has to do with being treated like anyone else, not being singled out for any reason like race, gender, geography, family history etc. You want "Equal opportunity" to mean something like "I want it i get it and for the prices I see fit".

Monopolies get your money whether you want their product or not? Bullshit. They sell their product for what the most they can get for it, why the fuck not? You don't have to buy it and if you do it's because you think it's worth the price. They should sell you whatever you want because YOU want to pay that much for it? They will set their prices in such a way as to make the most from it, If they set their prices too high they will lose customers and create huge opportunities for competition.

In a free market there is NOTHING to stop you or some competitor from opening a business, if you think prices are too high then don't threaten force because you don't like it - Do something about it! Start a business and if the monopoly tries price fix and lies to the consumers about no price decrease because of "material and labor costs" or some other bullshit then they are being fraudulent and coercive so they are breaking a law. If they say "No, we just want to charge heaps for it" then tough shit if you don't like it, you still have the opportunity to compete against them, seize the opportunity created by high prices and get into the market!

So imports stop a monopoly now? Honestly Void, you expect me to think that imports stop a monopoly?

CAN stop a monopoly. If you import matches OR manufacture them yourself and sell them for a lower price you are completely free to do so. You'll get more customers because your prices are better and retailers will buy your stock because they get more customers if they sell a cheaper product and can make more profits on quantity.

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?

That's not free market. we are both against government-private sector co-ops! Put the straw man down and back away!

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.

NOT in a free market there isn't! Yeah, Corporatism via Cronie capitalism (Mercantilism) or Keynesianism empowers corporate interests and creates monopolies while closing off the market to stifle competition and prevent people from doing anything about it - That is one of the MANY reasons why I am AGAINST corporatism.

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.

That's not fucking Free Market! Stop the strawman BS. The opportunity for Corporatism comes about via government control (regulations) of the market, not a government that DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to tamper with the economy!

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

So you've basically stated your intent to use straw men and false equivocation? Great.

Now when you want to actually address my position rather than attacking corporatism, as if that's NOT what I'm vehemently opposed to, you can continue the actual discussion.

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

The only player in the market for a particular product or service, that is what a monopoly is.

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.

Any time you are rewriting laws you are not a monopoly, you are a state-sponsored monopoly, one has the entire force of law on their side and working for their advantage, the other does not. There is a massive difference between the power the two have available.

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?

More fucking straw men huh?

Good, all people should fight against corporatism, stop taxpayer resources going to big business, I oppose it more than almost anything. Government intervention is not the solution to corporatism, it is the very means by which it is created.

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.

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, I'M NOT SUPPORTING CORPORATISM!

Can you stop straw manning me for ONE fucking second?

Prices are determined by supply and demand, if there is only one supplier their prices will be set as to make them the most possible money, the highest price that people will pay, if you have two suppliers it's different, it will be the highest price they can charge while out-selling the competition. Nothing "artificial" about that

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?

Slavery and individualism simply ARE NOT compatible. They didn't see blacks as individuals? So fucking what? That is an inconsistency in their position, not a flaw with mine. It would be like me launching pathetic attacks against communism or statism because you support some form social government, but you don't see me doing that, you don't see me attacking all socialists because of something that a group of people who define themselves as socialists did some time in the past, that's because unlike you it seems I don't have the intellectual spinelessness to resort to straw men to make a point.

Either address what I advocate or don't bother. I don't give a shit what some person who calls themselves a classical liberal somewhere at some time did that was contrary to the values espoused, your using it is nothing more than a straw man, no better than saying blacks are immoral because OJ Simpson killed his wife or Socialism is evil because Stalin was a genocidal maniac or Christianity is evil because of the crusades.

[theVOID]

Consumers always set the prices for companies.

Bull crap. Not withstanding that Void has been arguing all this time that companies can set their prices any way they want and I am a cry baby for not liking it. What you say is idealism, not reality.

Half right, the producers can charge the anything they like for their products, but they will only sell them if there are people willing to pay.

Target, a private consumer advocate TV show, looked at the quality, labor and material costs for high end fashion items and low end bulk consumer items and found that the labor and material costs were higher by about 50% even after the material and labor costs were taken into account, they could still charge this price because people were willing to pay it. there is nothing wrong with it.

Do you think Blackwaters "contractor" prices are too high? Well, too bad. No bid contracts with insiders force you and me to pay their price. So how can our spending power (which is gone in this situation) effect them?

And you attack government spending and corporatism? What the fuck is going on in your brain? That is NOT what we support.

[reverendjeremiah]

WOW. Lets stop for just one second. This is obviously becoming a hot topic Void, and I want to do the topic justice. Let me address your first post so you can see why I am coming to the conclusion that I am:

TOPIC: Classical Liberalism

We are talking about classical liberalism in the MODERN world right? I mean, right here, right now. Right? If not then many of my posts are void (pardon the pun) and nill.

Because there is a completely absurd amount of false equivocation on these boards I thought it apt to state the position clearly and let it be contended for what it is, rather than through the typical straw men that are in equal parts the responsibility of those who claim to be of this position when they are not "The tea party" and those who care not for the differences because they find it easier to attack the straw man.

Okay, you are really focusing on strawmen here. Lets try to clarify so I dont make strawmen, okay? Regardless, you say the libertarians are NOT the teabaggers. I disagree. They ARE the teabaggers. I agree that they arent following the social aspects of it, but that does not rule out that the ranks of the teabaggers are libertarians. You can toss that strawman claim up all you want, but show me one libertarian politican that ISNT rooting for the teabaggers. Allow me to show you my proof:
Libertarian US Senate candidate Alex Snitker speaks to around 5000 members of 11 tea party groups at the Tea Party Network
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5I5cAC4u9E
Now, say what you want about the politician, but listen to the teapartiers response to his proposals. They love him. The tea party applauds everything he says. If the teaparty is NOT libertarian backed, as you try to say, then WHY are they applauding all of the libertarian things he is saying? I guess this is where you say he isnt a libertarian. I expect you to brush over this.

1. The freedom of the individual is paramount:

The main consideration for all actions, namely politically is this "Does the action promote or thwart the freedoms of the individual"? Classical liberalism states that the government should only act to ensure that the freedoms of consenting adults, making sure that they are free from force, fraud, coercion or negligence. We should not sacrifice the freedoms of individuals for any collective agenda, commonly called "the common good".

Any person should be free to do whatever they like so long as their actions do not involve using force, fraud, coercion of neglecting their responsibilities to others. People with power will often say "we are going to force you to do x because we believe it is in your own best interest to do x". Classical liberals maintain that individuals not only are generally the best at establishing what is in their own best interests, they should have complete responsibilities over their own interests.

Then we have the libertarians setting up corporations, where profit is "the common good". Go ahead, and say it isnt. Say that corporations dont have a collective where profit is the common good. What happens if you are a chemical corporation who makes huge profits from a chemical that breaks down tree pulp for paper and someone says "Hey, marijuanna is cheaper, stronger, and doesnt need as many expensive chemicals to make into paper!"? Well, these libertarians deicde to get congress to make marijuanna illegal. Go ahead, say that they are no longer libertarians. Its okay, I agree. They have now become corporatists. They argued libertarianism to get them where they are at, and now that they have the power they no longer are libertarian. Its all about being selfish. Once a libertarian has the power he wants he ceases being a libertarian and then becomes an authoritarian, just like the libertarian Glenn Beck. Now that he has mad money he becomes "conservative" all of a sudden.

2. Establishment of principles.

This is the idea that the principles of individualism should be established and maintained despite what any collective, namely the government, wants to do otherwise. The courts should have the power to strike down any piece of legislation that violates the established principles or rule in favor of the individual who has done what the collective otherwise deem illegal if it is supported by the fundamental principles.

Yup, that is exactly what they say until they get corporate power, then they keep saying it, but dont act it. Churches can be incorporated. They act to preserve their profit flow. Are you trying to tell me that a libertarian would allow his profit margin to sink in the name of OTHER individuals rights? Honestly? If a libertarian is making money off of religion, then he is going to try and get as much power to him as possible. Money = social power. Money = power period. Because when they mean "the individual", they mean "me", not "you". The libertarian will be libertarian for himself, but not for others. A libertarians social beliefs are eclipse by his economic beliefs. If that isnt true, then ask a Libertarian if monopolies are supported by libertarians. They will say "yes". Look at how you brush a monopoly off Void. That speaks VOLUMES about your lack of economic morals. A person who takes a monopoly lightly should not be trusted on what they say about society, for it is all subject to change via the economic circumstances. If slavery becomes greatly profitable, the libertarian will consider it. Ask our libertarian (Classic liberal) founding fathers in America.

3. Bottom up organization

Structures in reality, from evolution to lives to languages to fashions to markets, are best organized spontaneously and from the bottom up based on the preferences of the individuals. There is no need for a top down approach to markets, no "hand of god/government" to tweak all the settings and rules.

How did evolution get tossed into an ideology that started before the birth of Darwin? By the time Darwins theory started to get well spread the shift between classic and modern liberals was forming. And who do you think you are fooling with this bottom up organization? So the libertarian companies ask their people "what price would you like for this Pepsi?" They say "free" The top of the organization says "no way". Well, I guess that settles it, the top of the organization had their say. It is now $1.00 a bottle, unless you are in a theme park, in which it becomes $5.00 a bottle. And the libs keep saying that "No need for government to control business..you little people are in control..no...really! Scouts honor!" So the Libertarian company creates its own environmental laws (none), its own watch dogs (none), its own insider trade bans (none), its own sheild against artificial inflation (none), etc, etc.. You mean to tell me you HONESTLY expect me to believe this? You honestly believe a libertarian will police itself at the expense of a quick profit?

4. Free Markets / Civil Charity.

All economic exchanges should be left to the voluntary actions of individuals, government should not be telling you where to work, how much to save, what needs produced, what companies need your money, who needs healthcare, where to give aid. It should be left entirely to individuals to allocate their productivity where they see fit or where they have agreed to trade.

Yeah, that sounds great..until the greed sets in. And who else to be the victims of greed than the libertarians? Oh no. Libertarians never only think of themselves. they think of the community, and how great it will be to dedicate their spare time to help people in need. Damned be to profit. Libertarians are always social minded creatures. [/sarcasm] There is a reason why they say "individual" so much. It means "me", not "you".

5. Private property.

Those things obtained by the individual through consensual means are entirely the property of the individual and nobody else. The individual has the full rights and responsibilities for where this property is used and nobody, other individuals or governments, may forcefully remove it.

Really? So if I buy a car then I OWN that car? I can backward engineer it and start my own car company using that model? What? Copyrights? But the libertarians said I owned this software! How come I cant make derivitives of it? It cuts into company profit margins? But I own this program! I bought it!
So I take it that you are against copywrights then?

6. Tolerance

You should not interfere with anyone else simply because you disagree with it. Because you think something is a good thing, the right thing, is no reason to interfere with the actions of others. Simply thinking that something is wrong is not a sufficient reason for action, it is immoral to force your opinions on others. Free speech is an example, we should tolerate speech of which we strongly disagree because it is not our business to tell them how to think and feel.

Something that is quickly forgotten when a libertarian becomes a wealthy corporate exec. Greed is intolerant.

So basically a libertarian is libertarian when he isnt rich. Libertarians are upper middle class and downward. Once they get into power they become like Glenn Beck, and are no longer Libertarian...they are "conservative" libertarians ( I call them corporatist scum bags)...but they still push the libertarian stuff. Thats why they usually vote Republican. Because their economic views eclipse their social views.

Now tell me I am wrong.

[Violet]

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.

I try usually not to comment on such things as the underlying processes that go on in just about 'everyone'... because these are often intensely Machiavellian. Don't worry: they are.

But I'm not heartless, quite the opposite I understand that it pushes me back a bit to give my resources to others... yet I typically donate to people who say they want a thing. They don't even have to ask, I simply do. ^_^

---

CORPORATISTS DONT WANT A FREE MARKET. I dont think I can say that enough. They want to control the market.

Actually, what they want is precisely a free market. That is to say, with no restrictions. Only then could they completely control everything.

[Tiberius]

And who do you think you are fooling with this bottom up organization? So the libertarian companies ask their people "what price would you like for this Pepsi?" They say "free" The top of the organization says "no way". Well, I guess that settles it, the top of the organization had their say. It is now $1.00 a bottle, unless you are in a theme park, in which it becomes $5.00 a bottle. And the libs keep saying that "No need for government to control business..you little people are in control..no...really! Scouts honor!"

Just because the top of the company has the final say on the price, does not mean they weren't persuaded by their consumers in setting that price. What you are showing is only part of your imaginary conversation.

Say that a company produces a soft drink, and puts it on the market. Consumers will want the product for the cheapest amount possible, and companies will want to gain the most profit from it. This is the mechanism by which companies set their prices; they want to set a price that is the highest price the majority of consumers will pay for it.

Say the costs of making the drink are $0.30 for each bottle. Selling the drink at $0.30 will get them the most amount of consumers, but won't make them any profit. Selling the drink for $0.50 each will make them a small amount of profit, but they will lose some consumers who aren't willing to fork out the extra $0.20. Selling the drink at $1.00 maximizes their profit, whilst maintaining that a large number of their consumers will purchase it (it won't be as many consumers as they got selling the drink for $0.30, but the increased price compensates that).

Theme Parks become a different matter. The demand for drinks is higher at a theme park, since you pay to get in, and can only consume food and drink bought in the park. Thus, the prices of such items will be more expensive. There are more people willing to pay those prices, and indeed, they do pay those prices (or the theme park would have reduced them by now).

Seriously, if you don't think that consumers ultimately have control over the prices of products, why don't Pepsi charge $10 for each drink? Or $20, or $100? Think about it. If they ever did that, they would lose practically all of their consumer base, and would start losing money fast. A good corporation finds the optimum amount to sell their product, such that the largest number of consumers are happy to buy it, and the profit generated is the highest.

[HeyItsZeus]

Because there is a completely absurd amount of false equivocation on these boards I thought it apt to state the position clearly and let it be contended for what it is, rather than through the typical straw men that are in equal parts the responsibility of those who claim to be of this position when they are not "The tea party" and those who care not for the differences because they find it easier to attack the straw man.

Classical Liberalism encompasses the basic ideals.

1. The freedom of the individual is paramount:

The main consideration for all actions, namely politically is this "Does the action promote or thwart the freedoms of the individual"? Classical liberalism states that the government should only act to ensure that the freedoms of consenting adults, making sure that they are free from force, fraud, coercion or negligence. We should not sacrifice the freedoms of individuals for any collective agenda, commonly called "the common good".

Any person should be free to do whatever they like so long as their actions do not involve using force, fraud, coercion of neglecting their responsibilities to others. People with power will often say "we are going to force you to do x because we believe it is in your own best interest to do x". Classical liberals maintain that individuals not only are generally the best at establishing what is in their own best interests, they should have complete responsibilities over their own interests.

1. The common good is good for the common. Sacrifice 1 to save 1,000,000. Not the other way around. It's reality that someone needs to suffer, might as well be a small amount of people that suffer so everyone else can feel better. 2. People do not always know what they need VOID. You think this of me, don't you? That's why we need to use mathematical calculations and rationality. For example: Socializing healthcare in the U.S. screws over a lot of insurance companies but a lot of poor people can get cared for and this would be less expensive than what our government is paying for citizen health needs already, actually.

2. Establishment of principles.

This is the idea that the principles of individualism should be established and maintained despite what any collective, namely the government, wants to do otherwise. The courts should have the power to strike down any piece of legislation that violates the established principles or rule in favor of the individual who has done what the collective otherwise deem illegal if it is supported by the fundamental principles.

This already exists here in the States. The only problem is these judges are bought out. In a representative democracy... the collective government is elected to represent their people. If they abuse their power they will be replaced easily. Besides, what makes you think that the government will always abuse those that they govern simply because it's a government?

3. Bottom up organization

Structures in reality, from evolution to lives to languages to fashions to markets, are best organized spontaneously and from the bottom up based on the preferences of the individuals. There is no need for a top down approach to markets, no "hand of god/government" to tweak all the settings and rules.

When the rules are unfair the government should create fair rules. In a democracy we elect people to do this. If rules are fine then the government has no right to change it.

4. Free Markets / Civil Charity.

All economic exchanges should be left to the voluntary actions of individuals, government should not be telling you where to work, how much to save, what needs produced, what companies need your money, who needs healthcare, where to give aid. It should be left entirely to individuals to allocate their productivity where they see fit or where they have agreed to trade.

I largely agree with you here but I subscribe to a different form of capitalism. Everything should exist in the free market (with regulation that benefits the common good) except human rights that people can not obtain on their own, such as poor people getting health care, food, H2O, police, firefighters, etc...

5. Private property.

Those things obtained by the individual through consensual means are entirely the property of the individual and nobody else. The individual has the full rights and responsibilities for where this property is used and nobody, other individuals or governments, may forcefully remove it.

I agree. My land is not your land, bitch!

6. Tolerance

You should not interfere with anyone else simply because you disagree with it. Because you think something is a good thing, the right thing, is no reason to interfere with the actions of others. Simply thinking that something is wrong is not a sufficient reason for action, it is immoral to force your opinions on others. Free speech is an example, we should tolerate speech of which we strongly disagree because it is not our business to tell them how to think and feel.

No. What the collective group (majority of citizens) sees as immoral, such as murder, should receive punishment.

[reverendjeremiah]

Say the costs of making the drink are $0.30 for each bottle. Selling the drink at $0.30 will get them the most amount of consumers, but won't make them any profit. Selling the drink for $0.50 each will make them a small amount of profit, but they will lose some consumers who aren't willing to fork out the extra $0.20. Selling the drink at $1.00 maximizes their profit, whilst maintaining that a large number of their consumers will purchase it (it won't be as many consumers as they got selling the drink for $0.30, but the increased price compensates that).

And you say my posts are "imaginary conversation". Honestly man, you screwed up when you started using numbers. When I was a restaurant manager, our greatest profit maker was soft drinks (which is why I used them as an example). The large drink generated the greatest profit, especially if it was iced tea. Large sodas sold for .99 plus tax, which equaled to about $1.05 at the time. Our over head on the soda was $0.05. 95% profit margin on the drink opposed to overhead. And if it was iced tea, the over head was 1/100 of a cent. The profit was 99.99%. You claim I am posting "imaginary conversations" (which is some ways I am) but I can easily toss out some REAL numbers that I have experienced. You make it seem like these Cola companies are just making an honest living. In reality they make MAD profits through overcharging (something that libertarians smile upon) and then they bankroll that cash.

Now this is where you say; "But people dont have to buy the product..they can set their own prices". Well, yeah, if that were the case. Coke PAC contributes hundreds of thousands of political donations to BOTH PARTIES in EQUAL AMOUNTS, or close to equal amounts.

Exhibit A: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cach...dJxw&pli=1
if you get an html prompt, select "plain html" hyperlink to view stats.

This PDF shows all of the political contributions to ensure that no matter WHO wins the elections, that Coca Cola's corporate interests come first before the actual electorate. Libertarians say this is okay. It is their companies money, and they can spend it how they like. Well, thanks to libertarian minded people, we common folk no longer have a say so in our social or economic future. Why would a politician listen to us (who are forced to pay them regardless, but cant line their pockets with more money) when Coke tosses BOTH parties cash to run their parties? Coke is screwing the public on prices, then using that money to take our politicians away from us so that they only pay attention to Coke. THAT is what libertarians want, and that is what libertarians do..and just because you say "but they arent libertarians"...last I checked this is ALL alowed on the libertarian political platform. So therefore, libertarians allow it, and they stand behind it. Try to say I made a strawman again.

Progressives are against this. Progressives are against corupt business interfering in our political system with corupt politicians. Money = power = social influence. Libertarians love that this happens. Libertarians talk social and economic freedom, but in reality they smile upon companies like Coke controlling our political system. Because libertarians are about economic libertarianism as their main driving force, not social libertarianism. Profit is their main driving force.

Now, you will probably say "how does COKE badly affect our American economics and social influence..they are just a softdrink looking to make a profit."

Look at how their profit margin has climbed from 6/13/01 to 6/11/09:

Exhibit B: https://ycharts.com/analysis/story/near_...ndervalued
please scroll down and look at the linear charts that spans 8 years of profits..not a single dip down

Why is that so? Because Coke screws the population on an almost 98% profit margin opposed to overhead and uses that money to buy off BOTH parties so that they can have their control over military contracts. Coke does not want someone like me in charge because it will cost them profits and power. They want ECONOMICALLY LIBERTARIAN types, like centrist Democrats, Republicans, and libertarians. Their profit margin has grown since 01 because of the war on terror. While we middle class strugle to make ends meet more and more, Coke's profit is gradually climbing and climbing because of the war, and they want a war without end. Where ever our millitary goes. Coka Cola is there to be sold. So why would Coke want a stop to this war? So now we have one corporation, who's product is innocent enough, but whos intent is to make profit, control our government and ultimately sacrifice the lives of our military in order to get their product more easily distributed. We pay the price with our money and lives, and Coke gets all of the power and profit.

Is that realistic enough for you?

Now go ahead and say Coke corp. isnt libertarian.

[HeyItsZeus]

VOID... libertarianism is fine in certain situations. Not now, though. I say this based on studies that clearly show that large corporations are fucking up the government. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Yes I used caps! The truth is obvious .

And now refute this please: Corporations are screwing up our democratic governments, not the other way around.

[reverendjeremiah]

VOID... libertarianism is fine in certain situations. Not now, though. I say this based on studies that clearly show that large corporations are fucking up the government. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Yes I used caps! The truth is obvious .

And now refute this please: Corporations are screwing up our democratic governments, not the other way around.

My last post just supported your argument. Economic libertarianism is destroying our country and our freedom and our lives.