View Poll Results: Which of the following Libertarian Party Issues do you support(Libertarian only vote)

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Laissez Faire capitalism

    31 70.45%
  • End drug prohibition

    42 95.45%
  • avoid interventionism in foreign polic

    29 65.91%
  • End foreign aid

    30 68.18%
  • End gun bans

    37 84.09%
  • Deregulate healthcare

    32 72.73%
  • Semi-amnesty for illegal aliens(work for amnesty)

    15 34.09%
  • End welfare

    30 68.18%
  • Allow opting out of Social Security

    37 84.09%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 80

Thread: Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please vote

  1. #31
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Ahh. ok.... Well in that case, as I am sure you would agree. Libertarians like democrats, republicans, constitutionalists, etc. don't have to agree 100% with the whole of a platform or to the degree they put it.
    Absolutely true, and I am not trying to imply otherwise.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #32
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-13 @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,932

    Re: Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please vote

    Laissez Faire capitalism
    In favor of regulation, not in favor of interventions/distortions. In my view free market capitalism is mainly about avoiding government intervention.
    I don't see how we could escape regulation, I'm a libertarian not a anarchist.

    End drug prohibition
    Yes, end it.

    avoid interventionism in foreign policy
    No and I don't believe that's a libertarian view either. I'm sure many american lbertarians embrace isiolationist views but those are typical for the american situation. We (the dutch) don't have a big international role, non interventionism wont result in a smaller government here.

    End foreign aid
    Yes, let people be charitable with their own money.

    End gun bans
    No, true heroes use a sword.

    Deregulate healthcare
    No, healthcare is not a consumer good, we shouldn't treat it as such.

    Semi-amnesty for illegal aliens(work for amnesty)
    In a perfect world yes, no bounderies. Since this is not a perfect world, we should be pragmatic about manmade borders. Amnesty will inspire more aliens to become illegal, so no.

    End welfare
    No, chances are that's going to cost a society more. Besides, people on welfare spend 99% of their budget on basic needs, spend it in the society that provides for it. As long as there's enough incentive to work, I don't mind a safety net.


    Allow opting out of Social Security
    No because if you fail to provide for yourself you will become a burden to others. Let everyone pay.
    Last edited by Djoop; 05-25-10 at 12:33 PM.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    They can also form without it. Especially without it.
    Name a monopoly that has ever formed without governmental intervention. All monopolies have formed with the aid of the state.

    There are a lot of things that business can interfere with and yes they can encourage monopoly and oligopoly as well. But it is possible to use government to dissuade from these as well. With no government, you're guaranteed monopoly and oligopoly.
    Monopolies can not form without state intervention.


    You do know how this works right? The monopoly and oligopoly are the entities with all the leverage. If small business comes about, they undercut. The established entity already in control of most of the market share can take hits to profit to drive out competition. You kill off the little guys as they emerge, when not threatened by little guys you price fix. Your "market competition" doesn't exist in Laizze-faire. It's killed as soon as it makes the scene. This is how monopoly and oligopoly work. We've seen it before, measured. Been there done that. This is the real world, and in the real world laizze-faire does not work, it cannot ensure free market capitalism. Small amount of government regulation is necessary to ensure the free market.

    The little guy gets killed off before they can even enter the market because of barriers to entry created by the state. Predatory pricing is a myth, and there is 0 empirical evidence for any company ever having raised prices after vanquishing the competition:

    The Myth of Predatory Pricing

    by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

    Thomas J. DiLorenzo holds the Scott L. Probasco, Jr., Chair of Free Enterprise at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

    Executive Summary

    The attempt to reduce or to eliminate predatory pricing is also likely to reduce or eliminate com petitive pricing beneficial to consumers.
    --Harold Demsetz

    Predatory pricing is one of the oldest big business conspiracy theories. It was popularized in the late 19th century by journalists such as Ida Tarbell, who in History of the Standard Oil Company excoriated John D. Rockefeller because Standard Oil's low prices had driven her brother's employer, the Pure Oil Company, from the petroleum-refining business.(1) "Cutting to Kill" was the title of the chapter in which Tarbell condemned Standard Oil's allegedly predatory price cutting................

    ...........................

    The Futile Search for a Predatory Pricer

    Even though predatory pricing was part of the theoretical underpinning of the original federal antitrust laws, and there have been hundreds of federal antitrust cases based on claims of predatory pricing, economists and legal scholars have to this day failed to provide an unambiguous example of a single monopoly created by predatory pricing. (In contrast, no such ambiguity exists in the case of government-sanctioned monopolies created by protectionism, exclusive franchising, grandfather clauses, occupational licensing, and other government-imposed barriers to competition.)

    The theory of predatory pricing is no longer widely accepted by economists, but it was the conventional wisdom before McGee's 1958 article. The economics profession--and antitrust practitioners--accepted the notion as a matter of faith even though no one (before McGee) had conducted a systematic economic analysis of predatory pricing.

    By 1970 more than 120 federal (and thousands of private) antitrust cases in which predatory pricing was alleged had been brought under the 1890 Sherman Act. Yet in a 1970 study of the so-called gunpowder trust--43 corporations in the explosives industry--Kenneth Elzinga stated, after an extensive literature search, that "to my knowledge no one has ever examined in detail, as McGee did, other alleged incidents of predatory pricing."(21) Elzinga found no evidence that the gunpowder trust--which had been accused of predatory pricing--actually practiced it.

    Shortly after Elzinga's work appeared, Ronald H. Koller examined the "123 federal antitrust cases since the passage of the Sherman Act in 1890 in which it was alleged that behavior generally resembling predation had played a significant role."(22) Ninety-five of those cases resulted in convictions, even though in only 26 of the cases was there a trial that "produced a factual record adequate for the kind of analysis employed" by Koller.(23) Apparently, many of the defendants decided it was cheaper to plead guilty than to defend themselves.

    Even though no systematic analysis of predatory pricing was performed in any of the 123 cases, Koller established the following criteria for independently determining whether a monopoly was established by predatory pricing: Did the accused predator reduce its price to less than its short-run average total cost? If so, did it appear to have done so with a predatory intent? Did the reduction in price succeed in eliminating a competitor, precipitating a merger, or improving "market discipline"?

    Koller's criteria give predatory pricing theory more credit than it deserves. As was explained earlier, below- cost pricing per se is not necessarily a sign of predatory behavior; it is a normal feature of competitive markets. Moreover, determining predatory intent is an exercise that is far beyond the capabilities of any economist and for which mystics might be better suited. And "eliminating a competitor" is the very purpose of all competition.

    Employing those criteria for determining predatory behavior, Koller found that below-cost pricing "seems to have been at least attempted" in only seven cases.(24) That, of course, proves nothing about monopolizing behavior, given the fact that below-cost pricing can be just as easily construed as competitive behavior. Koller claims that in four of the cases low prices seemed to have been motivated by the desire to eliminate a rival. One would hope so! The entire purpose of competitive behavior--whether cutting prices or improving product quality--is to eliminate one's rivals.

    Even in the cases where a competitor seemed to have been eliminated by low prices, "in no case were all of the competitors eliminated."(25) Thus, there was no monopoly, just lower prices. Three cases seem to have facilitated a merger, but mergers are typically an efficient alternative to bankruptcy, not a route to monopoly. In those cases, as in the others, the mergers did not result in anything remotely resembling a monopolistic industry, as defined by Koller (i.e., one with a single producer).

    In sum, despite over 100 federal antitrust cases based on predatory pricing, Koller found absolutely no evidence of any monopoly having been established by predatory pricing between 1890 and 1970. Yet at the time Koller's study was published (1971), predatory pricing had long been part of the conventional wisdom. The work of McGee, Elzinga, and other analysts had not yet gained wide recognition.

    The search for the elusive predatory pricer has not been any more successful in the two decades since Koller's study appeared. The complete lack of evidence of predatory pricing, moreover, has not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Matsu****a Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (1986), the Court demonstrated knowledge of the above-mentioned research in declaring, effectively, that predatory pricing was about as common as unicorn sightings.

    Zenith had accused Matsu****a and several other Japanese microelectronics companies of engaging in predatory pricing--of using profits from the Japanese market to subsidize below-cost pricing of color television sets in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled against Zenith, recognizing in its majority opinion that

    a predatory pricing conspiracy is by nature speculative. Any agreement to price below the competitive level requires the conspirators to forgo profits that free competition would offer them. The forgone profits may be considered an investment in the future. For the investment to be rational, the conspirators must have a reasonable expectation of recovering, in the form of later monopoly profits, more than the losses suffered.(26)

    The Court also noted that "the success of such schemes is inherently uncertain: the short-run loss is definite, but the long-run gain depends on successfully neutralizing the competition."(27) The Court continues, "There is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful."(28)

    In that case, Zenith and RCA were obviously attempting to use the antitrust laws, via their accusation of predatory pricing, to eliminate some of their foreign competition. The Court determined, for example, that "two decades after their conspiracy is alleged to have commenced, petitioners appear to be far from achieving their goal: the two largest shares of the retail market in television sets are held by RCA and . . . Zenith, not by any of the petitioners."(29) Moreover, the share of the market held by Zenith and RCA "did not decline . . . during the 1970s," which provides further evidence that "the conspiracy does not in fact exist."(30)

    The Court concluded by warning potential litigants of the folly of bringing predatory pricing cases.

    Cutting prices in order to increase business often is the very essence of competition. Thus, mistaken inferences in cases such as this one are especially costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect.(31)

    Since predatory pricing schemes "require conspirators to suffer losses in order eventually to realize . . . gains," the Court concluded that "economic realities tend to make predatory pricing conspiracies self-deterring."(32)

    What predatory pricing comes down to is a theory and a legal doctrine that are still used by inefficient firms to try to get the coercive powers of government to attain for them what they cannot attain in the marketplace. As former Federal Trade Commission chairman James Miller has written, government has all too often used predatory pricing as a vehicle for instructing businesses to "stop competing, leave your competitors alone, raise your prices."(33)


    ........................................

    Conclusions

    .........................................

    Harold Demsetz is right. The attempt to reduce or eliminate so-called predatory pricing will only eliminate competitive pricing, which is beneficial to consumers.(53) Predatory pricing is simply illogical, although there are some highly stylized economic models that claim that it is feasible under certain assumptions. Other research has shown, however, that predatory pricing cannot even be replicated under laboratory conditions by "experimental" economics.(54) In either case, an unambiguous example of a free-market monopoly that was established as a result of predatory pricing has yet to be found.

    Unfortunately, the doctrine of predatory pricing still motivates antitrust suits and other protectionist pleadings. Significantly, it is legislation and regulation enacted in the name of predatory pricing (not predatory pricing itself) that are truly monopolizing. Government--not the free market--is the source of monopoly.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html
    Predatory prosecution

    Thomas Sowell

    Obviously, predatory pricing pays off only if the surviving predator can then raise prices enough to recover the previous losses, making enough extra profit thereafter to justify the risks. These risks are not small.

    However, even the demise of a competitor does not leave the survivor home free. Bankruptcy does not by itself destroy the fallen competitor's physical plant or the people whose skills made it a viable business. Both may be available-perhaps at distress prices-to others who can spring up to take the defunct firm's place.

    The Washington Post went bankrupt in 1933, though not because of predatory pricing. But neither its physical plant, its people, or its name disappeared into thin air. Instead, publisher Eugene Meyer acquired all three-at a fraction of what he had bid unsuccessfully for the same newspaper just four years earlier. In the course of time, the Post became the biggest newspaper in Washington.

    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0503/6309089a.html
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 05-25-10 at 01:30 PM.

  4. #34
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown View Post
    I'm a strong supporter of anti-trust laws, as the free market depends upon robust competition to work at an optimal level and monopolies are a antithesis of competition. I'm for reasonable safety standards since many defects or unsafe issues are easily concealed from the consumer, making it impossible for them to make an informed choice.
    Were we better off because we broke apart Standard Oil?

    I recogonize that pollution has a cost to all of us (aka society, a word so many libertarians seem to hate) and it is not accounted for in the price a company charges. Its called an externality cost and government is well suited to account for that cost through regulations. I recognize the market can fail - imagine the disaster that private roads would be. And government again is the ideal body to step in fill the gap left by those failures.
    We have the externality because we, as property owners, are not allowed to impose it on the company as we should. Blame the legal system.

    End Welfare: I'm not opposed to offering some government assistance to the truly disabled. History has shown that private charity alone is not sufficient. I'm also not opposed to creating a tempory program designed to help people who have fallen on hard times get back on their feet. I'm strongly opposed to allowing able bodied individuals become long term dependents of the state.
    Proof? And furthermore, proof that now although we are even richer that we wouldn't be able to do it voluntarily now?

    How about requiring work for welfare?

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  5. #35
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Name a monopoly that has ever formed without governmental intervention. All monopolies have formed with the aid of the state.
    The Robber Barons constructed quite a bit of monopoly and oligopoly. With the help of government? Certainly didn't need it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Monopolies can not form without state intervention.
    Prove it. What dynamic exists which would counter the monopoly/oligopoly formation without external government force?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    The little guy gets killed off before they can even enter the market because of barriers to entry created by the state. Predatory pricing is a myth, and there is 0 empirical evidence for any company ever having raised prices after vanquishing the competition:
    It's not a myth, it's been done before. It was completely within the tactics of Standard Oil and the other monopolies of the time.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #36
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's not a myth, it's been done before. It was completely within the tactics of Standard Oil and the other monopolies of the time.
    But was Standard Oil a monopoly for bad reasons?

    The Gates-Rockefeller Myth - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

    "Standard Oil was such an extraordinarily efficient company that even Rockefellerís harshest journalistic critic, Ida Tarbell, described it as "a marvelous example of economy." The efficiencies of economies of scale and vertical integration caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 10 cents by 1874, and to 5.9 cents in 1897. During the same period Rockefeller reduced his average costs from 3 cents to 0.29 cents per gallon.

    The industryís output of refined petroleum increased rapidly throughout this period--just the opposite of what mainstream monopoly theory would predict. In 1911, the year in which the federal government forced the breakup of Standard Oil, the company faced fierce competition from Associated Oil and Gas, Texaco, Gulf, and 147 other independent refineries. Because of this competition Standard Oilís market share fell from 88 percent in 1890 to a mere 11 percent by 1911."

    Huh, I guess we didn't need anti-trust laws for Standard Oil.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  7. #37
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please vote

    Maybe, maybe not (Standard Oil, BTW, is not the only monopoly/oligopoly from the region). It could have gotten there for good reason. Once there it can become corrupt. The point is that it stifles the market and prevents proper competition from being in place. With no government regulation, it's going to automatically fall to the monopoly/oligopoly state quickly. Maybe quicker than with government intervention. If the goal is free market capitalism, then one has to put in the necessary tools to prevent monopoly. That takes some amount of government oversight. Laizze-faire will not end in good places, we've seen this.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #38
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please vote

    The point is that a monopoly cannot stop competition. Standard Oil only had the dominant position when they were most efficient. The competition was right there to step in when Standard Oil slipped up.

    The point remains, as Agent Ferris states. The only monopolies that ever existed were propped up by the government.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  9. #39
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please vote

    But even if the existing monopolies we have were "propped up" by government; it still doesn't mean that absent of government there will be no monopoly. In fact, that makes no sense. There are plenty of things which monopolies can do to prevent fair competition and keep a large portion of the market to themselves. And a company may be innovative and new and drive to the top; but that doesn't mean that it's going to behave properly and within the confines of proper free market capitalism. Standard Oil held its position through resource and consumer outlet control in part. This was a time when there was very little government "propping up". The Rail roads turned into the perfect example of oligopoly, oil turned into monopoly, steel, banking, commodity, etc fell into various forms of monopoly and oligopoly without much government interference at all. It wasn't until the government go involved in which it was able to clear out a lot of the unfair business practices and open up the markets to actual competition.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #40
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,947

    Re: Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please vote

    Moderator's Warning:
    Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please voteAs a heads up please be mindful of our rules, specifically for Fair Use. Outside sources should be kept to around two paragraphs worth and then linked, not posted in entirely or barring a line or two.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •