Ron Paul's ideas no longer fringe

Fiddytree · Jan 10, 2010

No. Republicans, even Ronald Reagan himself realized that "government is the problem" only works in rhetoric, not in practice. Libertarians have the wrong conception of Republican politics when they somehow think that they alone "own" Reagan or the GOP's political philosophy.

Voluntary · Jan 10, 2010

nonpareil said:
1. So you think patents, copyrights and trade marks should be abolished?

2. There are barriers to entry even without government interventions

3. Government involvement is not always the reason for monopolies - reading your post one would think if government cease to exist, there wouldn't be any monopoly or oligopoly at all.

4. Not all government intervention are bad for either individuals or the market: e.g. bank regulations - is it better to allow everyone who feels like it to open an office, call itself a bank and collect deposit, or to have proper capital requirements? I'll let the other members of this forum judge.

5. Define the term "corporate welfare" properly and explain how it is one of the things that encourage monopolies. Most of time I see people just throwing terms around without making any relevant point. This post seems like one of those.

6. I thought the Constitution grants Congress the power to manage the currency, the monopoly over currency then has its root in the Constitution itself.

1. I said that they are not the product of the free market. They are based off of laws, not market interactions. Changing patent, copyrights, and trademark laws could drastically change the market structure. I really don't see what is so hard to understand.

Should they be abolished? Depends, but they are certainly worth looking into and possibly revising to allow more competition.

2. I never said otherwise.

3. I never said otherwise and perhaps you should re-read what I have written.

4. I am sure you can make the case for good regulation, especially in the environment. If you want others to judge your banking example, then so be it.

5. Corporate welfare is special treatment to corporation in the form of money gains. I don't think any large multi-national corporation needs any subsidies or special tax breaks. When you subsidy one company or give tax breaks to them that their competitor doesn't receive, then you are helping them gain a larger market share.

For example, tell me how you are going to compete with me when you are subjected to an 80% tax and I am only subjected to a 10%, plus receive subsidies?

6. You right, but that doesn't take away the fact that the Fed is a government granted monopoly that bears special privileges and responsibility. Whether you agree with the policies of the Fed is a completely different discussion.

I don't need to define it. When it fails from all the bureaucracies, it is too big.

That is a very vague definition, if that is indeed your definition. Any firm can fail from bureaucratic inefficiency and mismanagement.

No one said anything about permanent, so you're using a strawman. Besides, I just talked about firms eventually getting too big right above. :roll:

You said that technology does not play a whole in eroding natural monopolies. I countered with examples and stated that belief in permanent natural monopolies is naive. I never said that was your belief nor your argument, just that it was naive.

I know what a strawman is. You have made quite a couple.

Anyway, back to the point: improvement in communication technologies has made it easier to form bigger corporations that control larger and larger segment of the market - this is fact.

No, this is speculation since the government broke up Bell Co. If Bell Co. still maintained the same or larger market share after cell and satellite technology, then that would be a fact.

The replacement of newly technologies for the older ones is a replacement of industry. And with new industries, come new monopolies. Bells is replaced with AT&T, Verizon etc. then with the advent of computer and the internet, Microsoft, Google. So it only reinforces my point that markets have a tendency towards monopolies/oligopolies.

Replacement of new technologies does not necessarily mean replacement of industry. Only if they cannot adapt and sometimes these industries are responsible for the new technology.

Yes, monopolies/oligopolies will ebb and flow with market forces and technological breakthroughs, but they could retain their market share via patent laws, lobbying, copyright laws, etc.

Not all industries have a tendency towards monopolies.

Anyways, I really don't know where this conversation is going. Plus, I can see it is riddle with misunderstanding.

What point are you trying to exactly make?

CrusaderRabbit08 · Jan 10, 2010

j-mac said:
IMHO, Dr. Paul's positions on fiscal responsibility, and limited government are being picked up as correct, and they should be. However, until Paul drops this need to bash America as some sort of imperial power, he will be ever relegated to the sidelines.

j-mac

That's why he's a libertarian and you're not.

samsmart · Jan 10, 2010

chevydriver1123 said:
I wouldnt say that, I havent seen any "mainstream" conservatives join him on his foreign policy views.

Maybe, but there are a lot of tea-baggers who are spurred on by Ron Paul's ideas.

nonpareil · Jan 11, 2010

Voluntary said:
1. I said that they are not the product of the free market. They are based off of laws, not market interactions. Changing patent, copyrights, and trademark laws could drastically change the market structure. I really don't see what is so hard to understand.

And did I ask you to explain to me what they mean? :roll:

Should they be abolished? Depends, but they are certainly worth looking into and possibly revising to allow more competition.

Have you thought about what the result of abolishing patent and copyright law would be?

2. I never said otherwise.

Except you never said there is either. Omission can be just as big a sin.

3. I never said otherwise and perhaps you should re-read what I have written.

I've read it a few times before I replied, and that's the impression of your post. It's not gonna change.

5. Corporate welfare is special treatment to corporation in the form of money gains. I don't think any large multi-national corporation needs any subsidies or special tax breaks. When you subsidy one company or give tax breaks to them that their competitor doesn't receive, then you are helping them gain a larger market share.

For example, tell me how you are going to compete with me when you are subjected to an 80% tax and I am only subjected to a 10%, plus receive subsidies?

Give me an actual example of that happening and I'll know how to answer.

That is a very vague definition, if that is indeed your definition. Any firm can fail from bureaucratic inefficiency and mismanagement.

Yeah.

You said that technology does not play a whole in eroding natural monopolies. I countered with examples and stated that belief in permanent natural monopolies is naive. I never said that was your belief nor your argument, just that it was naive.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You stated that in reply to me, and now you are claiming that you are not implying that was my belief. Why even bring it up then? :roll:

I know what a strawman is. You have made quite a couple.

Oh a mystery. So I've made a couple of strawman. You said it, it must be true. There's no need for you to actually point out where I made them, if I even made them.

No, this is speculation since the government broke up Bell Co. If Bell Co. still maintained the same or larger market share after cell and satellite technology, then that would be a fact.

:doh Please differentiate between communication technology Vs communication industry.

It's easier to run a large corporation like McDonald, or Walmart, or Microsoft, with better communication technology. This is a fact.

Replacement of new technologies does not necessarily mean replacement of industry. Only if they cannot adapt and sometimes these industries are responsible for the new technology.

No. But the particular example you used represent a replacement of the industry. From telegraph, to land line phone, to mobile network, to broadband network. The companies that controlled these industries at its peak fall with the industry to be replaced by other monopolies.

Yes, monopolies/oligopolies will ebb and flow with market forces and technological breakthroughs, but they could retain their market share via patent laws, lobbying, copyright laws, etc.

Not all industries have a tendency towards monopolies.

Anyways, I really don't know where this conversation is going. Plus, I can see it is riddle with misunderstanding.

What point are you trying to exactly make?

The point I have been making is that the market is not perfect, as the Liberatrian would have us believe. The current market structure will not lead to fluid market response to demand and supply as envisioned by them, especially given market's tendency towards monopolies/oligopolies (there's a natural advantage to such big firms even without government intervention). And even if you think monopolies arise because of "government intervention" like patents and copyrights laws, the reality is that it's still there. Unless you are willing to abolish them, and find ways to make the market respond as well as in theory, then the market solution envisioned by Libertarians like Ron Paul is just a pipe dream.

Harry Guerrilla · Jan 11, 2010

nonpareil said:
The idea Libertarian or laisser faire hold is that the market is the answer to most economics problem. But the fact is the market is not always fluid and adjust to demand and supply perfectly. One of the problems with the market is the natural tendency to consolidate which creates monopolies, or more frequently Oligopoly, what some might call "corporatocracy", so it's not always true that "moving towards free markets would lead to less corporate power".

I have not seen an example of a natural monopoly developing using a free market economics.

Your going to have to provide an example of such an occurrence.

Catawba · Jan 11, 2010

danarhea said:
Many of his ideas, once regarded as fringe, are getting traction.

I am certainly glad to hear that his common sense platform of non-military intervention is gaining traction in the conservative movement. I must say that I had not noticed that. I am curious though as to what you base this on?

PeteEU · Jan 11, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
I have not seen an example of a natural monopoly developing using a free market economics.

Your going to have to provide an example of such an occurrence.

Because there never has and never will be a free market... it is simply impossible.

Microsoft is about the closest you can get. Very little government intervention was present in their rise. Standard oil is another example, that got too big thanks to unregulated markets and in the end it had to be broken up. Then there are examples of minimal government intervention that causes a massive powerful monopoly... the East India Company comes to mind. One could easily claim that this private company became more powerful than the British Empire before the UK government nationalised it pretty much. It had its own armies that literally killed off the competition.

But no matter how you slice or dice it, the free market is impossible and the more free of regulation a market becomes the bigger chance of big ups and huge downs in said market and the higher the chance of abuse of power.

Harry Guerrilla · Jan 11, 2010

PeteEU said:
Because there never has and never will be a free market... it is simply impossible.

Microsoft is about the closest you can get. Very little government intervention was present in their rise. Standard oil is another example, that got too big thanks to unregulated markets and in the end it had to be broken up. Then there are examples of minimal government intervention that causes a massive powerful monopoly... the East India Company comes to mind. One could easily claim that this private company became more powerful than the British Empire before the UK government nationalised it pretty much. It had its own armies that literally killed off the competition.

But no matter how you slice or dice it, the free market is impossible and the more free of regulation a market becomes the bigger chance of big ups and huge downs in said market and the higher the chance of abuse of power.

Microsoft has a misappropriated copyright instead of a patent for their software.
The governments failure to recognize software as a virtual mechanical device caused this.

Standard Oil collaborated with the railroads which at one time owned 1/10th of the land in the U.S.
The railroads were given that land by the government as payment for building the railroads.

The East India Company had a lot of privileges extended to it by the English government, their rise to power would not have been like that otherwise.

All those groups represent government privilege or misappropriation.

PeteEU · Jan 11, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
Microsoft has a misappropriated copyright instead of a patent for their software.
The governments failure to recognize software as a virtual mechanical device caused this.

So what are you saying.. that government failed in regulating the free market? Microsoft gained its power because it made the right deal with the right company at the right time, while its main competitor (Apple) refused to be flexible in the market. It had nothing to do with copyright or patents. Microsoft would never have become big if it had not made a deal with IBM and the fact that Apple screwed up big time. Like it or not there were alternatives to Microsoft in the market in the beginning and the market was as free as you can have in the west.

Standard Oil collaborated with the railroads which at one time owned 1/10th of the land in the U.S.
The railroads were given that land by the government as payment for building the railroads.

What a load of crap to say. By this standard the only time there is a free market is when there is no government at all... that is called anarchy and even then I would claim that there is some sort of "government" since the rule of the gun is in force, and the one with the most guns rules supreme.

Standard Oil gained its power because it bought up the competition and forced out the rest through price dumping, intimidation and even violence. So what if it collaborated with railroads, that was its right to do so in a free market and if it had not I would wager it could just buy up the railroads... it was so powerful. It also collaborated with the banks, used the dollar, breathed the air and used the water of the states it was in and walked the regulated streets of the cities it was in. It has about as much bearing on their rise to power as collaborating with the rail roads.

The East India Company had a lot of privileges extended to it by the English government, their rise to power would not have been like that otherwise.

Lots of privileges.... yea.. it was left to do what it wanted as long as it paid the British Empire a fee. The East India Company got one thing from the British government... the sole right for trade in Asia within the British Empire and full right to do whatever it wanted. With this it drove competition out of business or life through out the Asia region. It took up arms against competition from other countries and intimidated local populations to only trade with them and no one else. That was the free market in abundance.

All those groups represent government privilege or misappropriation.

and when is there NOT a government privilege or so called misappropriation involved in any business transaction ever? Even in countries that have the closets thing to a free market you can get, "government" has influence on the market in some way or another. Look at Somalia.. the free market paradise, since there is next to no official government there. And yet there is.. tribal chiefs, local warlords all influence the "free market" in some way. The free market can not exist even remotely without government, and yet you claim it can.... Your whole view is a freaking pipe dream.

Coronado · Jan 11, 2010

Dutch said:
I'm guessing fully half of our so-called libertarians are on board that wagon just for the drugs..... :roll:

Until you can prove it, this will be relegated to the level of ad hominem.

Thus, your argument fails.

Harry Guerrilla · Jan 11, 2010

PeteEU said:
So what are you saying.. that government failed in regulating the free market? Microsoft gained its power because it made the right deal with the right company at the right time, while its main competitor (Apple) refused to be flexible in the market. It had nothing to do with copyright or patents. Microsoft would never have become big if it had not made a deal with IBM and the fact that Apple screwed up big time. Like it or not there were alternatives to Microsoft in the market in the beginning and the market was as free as you can have in the west.

Well as you know patents are limited while copyrights are about in length of 100ish years or more.
They have been granted a monopoly and have thus been allowed to exclude competition to there original works.

They could have been outpaced by a company who does a better job at designing their original product.

PeteEU said:
What a load of crap to say. By this standard the only time there is a free market is when there is no government at all... that is called anarchy and even then I would claim that there is some sort of "government" since the rule of the gun is in force, and the one with the most guns rules supreme.

Didn't say anarchy, now your making crap up.
You have to go to extremes to make your point.

PeteEU said:
Standard Oil gained its power because it bought up the competition and forced out the rest through price dumping, intimidation and even violence. So what if it collaborated with railroads, that was its right to do so in a free market and if it had not I would wager it could just buy up the railroads... it was so powerful. It also collaborated with the banks, used the dollar, breathed the air and used the water of the states it was in and walked the regulated streets of the cities it was in. It has about as much bearing on their rise to power as collaborating with the rail roads.

Is violence legal? How did they get away with that?

No the railroads were powerful entities, granted to them by government.
They had the power to exclude and the power to make barons out of nobodies because of their control over land and money.

None of that could of been possible had the government not given away so much land to them.

PeteEU said:
Lots of privileges.... yea.. it was left to do what it wanted as long as it paid the British Empire a fee. The East India Company got one thing from the British government... the sole right for trade in Asia within the British Empire and full right to do whatever it wanted. With this it drove competition out of business or life through out the Asia region. It took up arms against competition from other countries and intimidated local populations to only trade with them and no one else. That was the free market in abundance.

That is not free market in any sense, free markets run on legal frameworks and not on complete anarchy.
The government exists to protect life and liberty of all people not just the wallets of corporations and businesses.

PeteEU said:
and when is there NOT a government privilege or so called misappropriation involved in any business transaction ever? Even in countries that have the closets thing to a free market you can get, "government" has influence on the market in some way or another. Look at Somalia.. the free market paradise, since there is next to no official government there. And yet there is.. tribal chiefs, local warlords all influence the "free market" in some way. The free market can not exist even remotely without government, and yet you claim it can.... Your whole view is a freaking pipe dream.

They have practically no government at all, nothing to protect individuals from these war lords et all.

I never said it could exist without government, what I did say is that all examples of monopolies that I have seen thus far have been caused by governments and not by free market principles.

"A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud. This is the contemporary use of the terminology is used by economists and in popular culture; the term has had other uses historically. A free market requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies. It is the opposite of a controlled market, where the government regulates prices or how property is used."

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market]Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

That is a huge difference from what you claim it is.

Catawba · Jan 11, 2010

I am very impressed with Ron Paul's comprehension of the counter productive nature of our so called, "war on terror."

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QOrswe9Y44"]YouTube- Ron Paul "This Is Not What America Is All About!" pt.1[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcrm_awaO0E&feature=related"]YouTube- Ron Paul "This Is Not What America Is All About!" pt.2[/ame]

Zinc Route · Jan 11, 2010

***** Why couldn't Paul keep that lunatic 9/11 Truther contigent out of his campaign in 2007 & 2008 ??? He knew they were jamming the phone banks post debates which was a classic Larouche type tactic.

Coronado · Jan 11, 2010

Zinc Route said:
***** Why couldn't Paul keep that lunatic 9/11 Truther contigent out of his campaign in 2007 & 2008 ??? He knew they were jamming the phone banks post debates which was a classic Larouche type tactic.

They are a parasite that he unfortunately cannot seem to shake.

danarhea · Jan 11, 2010

Catawba said:
I am certainly glad to hear that his common sense platform of non-military intervention is gaining traction in the conservative movement. I must say that I had not noticed that. I am curious though as to what you base this on?

Yea, Republicans are all militarists who use military intervention rather than other methods, which would avoid blowback in US foreign policy. Just like that Republican...... Barack Obama.... Huh?!?! :mrgreen:

Skateguy · Jan 11, 2010

Dr. Ron Paul, gets my vote every time. He is so much smarter than all the rest, even if he looks like my 8th grade Math teacher. He has it where it counts. :mrgreen:

Catawba · Jan 11, 2010

danarhea said:
Yea, Republicans are all militarists who use military intervention rather than other methods, which would avoid blowback in US foreign policy. Just like that Republican...... Barack Obama.... Huh?!?! :mrgreen:

As I previously stated, which I guess you missed, I oppose Obama's continuation of a foreign policy which has been counter productive.

danarhea · Jan 11, 2010

Catawba said:
As I previously stated, which I guess you missed, I oppose Obama's continuation of a foreign policy which has been counter productive.

I didn't miss it. You inferred that it was Republicans that started wars. OK, OK, Republicans started Iraq, and Democrats supported them. How about Vietnam? Who forged the reports the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was based on? Let me give you a hint: It wasn't Nixon.

All I am saying is that you can't put this on just one party. When Johnson escalated Vietnam, based on a forged report of an attack, Republicans danced with him. When Bush invaded Iraq, based on bad intel, and forged documents, Democrats danced with him. Ever get the feeling that the 2 parties are closer together than most people think?

nonpareil · Jan 11, 2010

First of all, thanks pete. Took a lot of writing off my hands.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Well as you know patents are limited while copyrights are about in length of 100ish years or more.
They have been granted a monopoly and have thus been allowed to exclude competition to there original works.

It's their work. If you want to abolish patent and coryrights law, come out and say it so we know that there's no point arguing with you. :roll:

They could have been outpaced by a company who does a better job at designing their original product.

By technically stealing from others. Is that your idea of "free market"?

Didn't say anarchy, now your making crap up.
You have to go to extremes to make your point.

You didn't say much. All you did was come in and claim that there was never any monopolies in a "free market"? What constitute a "free market" to you anyway? Then you go on to give examples that demonstrate states losing control to companies and you say that's the state's fault too. Basically, one has to conclude that you think that if there were no government, everything would be peachy. And that's a big delusion.

Is violence legal? How did they get away with that?

"Legal" implies there's someone to keep the law - a government? Wouldn't that interfere with the "free market"?

No the railroads were powerful entities, granted to them by government.
They had the power to exclude and the power to make barons out of nobodies because of their control over land and money.

None of that could of been possible had the government not given away so much land to them.

So you are against the ideas of goods exchanging hands now? You said it yourself, the government gave the land in exchange for the railroad they built. So the alternatives are: no railway travel at all, or a government built railroad. Neither is "free market" by any means.

That is not free market in any sense, free markets run on legal frameworks and not on complete anarchy.
The government exists to protect life and liberty of all people not just the wallets of corporations and businesses.

Except when you don't like the legal framework. Then it's not "free market" anymore, like copyrights law. :roll:

They have practically no government at all, nothing to protect individuals from these war lords et all.

I never said it could exist without government, what I did say is that all examples of monopolies that I have seen thus far have been caused by governments and not by free market principles.

"A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud. This is the contemporary use of the terminology is used by economists and in popular culture; the term has had other uses historically. A free market requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies. It is the opposite of a controlled market, where the government regulates prices or how property is used."

Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is a huge difference from what you claim it is.

What he claimed is that there has never been a "free market", per your definition, in modern time, so of course there's never a monopolies in a "free market" that never exists. And he's right.

Catawba · Jan 11, 2010

danarhea said:
Ever get the feeling that the 2 parties are closer together than most people think?

Of course, the 2 parties are almost identical in foreign policy. I condemn the foreign policy of both parties.

How about you?

That includes the latest bipartisan support for sanctions against Iran which has passed the house and being debated in the Senate.

Ron Paul made very clear during that debate why this would be a foolish move:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is9gHHKQNYo"]YouTube- Ron Paul On House Floor - Debate On Iran Sanctions![/ame]

Dav · Jan 12, 2010

danarhea said:
For a couple of decades, Ron Paul has fought almost a one man battle against the other members, both Democratic and Republican, in Congress. And now, guess what? Many of his ideas, once regarded as fringe, are getting traction. His proposal, almost 20 years old, to give Congress power over the Fed, is close to becoming law, Republicans are now finally picking up on his warnings about government spending, and tea partiers are aping his style, albeit with messages much different than Paul's.

Much of Paul's rhetoric, once regarded as extremism, is now regarded as Conservative mainstream. And why not? While there are many points from Ron Paul that will never be enacted, much of what he has pushed for is Common Sense. Could Ron Paul eventually be regarded as the modern day Tom Paine? I think he could be. After all, Barry Goldwater, who was considered by many in his time to be an extremist**, was the lynchpin in what eventually became the Reagan Revolution. Will Ron Paul be the one to usher in the next Ronald Reagan?

Discussion?

**I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! ... Barry Goldwater

Article is here.

Okay, so you gave one example of a once-fringe idea of his that is no longer fringe (Congressional control of the Fed).

Any more examples?

Zyphlin · Jan 12, 2010

Yeah, I'm not seeing how his ideas are no longer fringe.

It was never his GENERALIZED view points that were considered fringe.

Decreasing the size of government is a principle of Ron Paul, that's not fringe. Completely axing the Department of Education is an idea of his, its fringe.

Having a non-interventionalist philosophy isn't that fringe and is a principle of his. Pulling back our men and women from almost every military base we have world wide and rather immedietely drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan is a bit more fringe.

Having a fiscally responsible government isn't that fringe. Believing we need to go into a modernized version of the gold standard is.

Lowering taxes isn't a fringe thought. Completely getting rid of the income tax and the IRS and replacing it with nothing is fringe.

Fringe does not make it bad, just that its not exactly main stream. Many of Ron Pauls generaly ideological foundations are becoming more mainstream within conservatism and becoming more focused upon. However, many of his ideas on how to persue those principles and inact them is where the "fringe" mentality and belief comes into play. Its also been my biggest gripe with Ron Paul. In a generalize way his message is a great one and one I think can win. The problem is he either is FAR from a pragmatic realist OR has no ability to explain things simply and succinctly so that the average voter can understand the extreme things he's saying is not an immediete goal but a potential end point.

Harry Guerrilla · Jan 12, 2010

nonpareil said:
It's their work. If you want to abolish patent and coryrights law, come out and say it so we know that there's no point arguing with you. :roll:

Sorry I didn't say that at all, you have to put words in my mouth to make a point I see.

Microsoft was awarded a copyright and not a patent, which is incorrect for them to have.
Operating systems are utility devices and should be patented not copyrighted.

nonpareil said:
By technically stealing from others. Is that your idea of "free market"?

Technically its not stealing at all, you have to remove something from another person in order for it to be stealing.

nonpareil said:
You didn't say much. All you did was come in and claim that there was never any monopolies in a "free market"? What constitute a "free market" to you anyway? Then you go on to give examples that demonstrate states losing control to companies and you say that's the state's fault too. Basically, one has to conclude that you think that if there were no government, everything would be peachy. And that's a big delusion.

The state allowed these companies to exist in their monopolistic form and even financed a portion of some of their growth through subsidy.

Never said no government, not one time.
You guys seem to have a problem addressing the facts that these companies all received some sort of privilege from the state in order to exist as a monopoly.

nonpareil said:
"Legal" implies there's someone to keep the law - a government? Wouldn't that interfere with the "free market"?

Legal framework is , enforcing valid contracts and prevention of fraud and/or force against another.

That is what governments are established to do.

nonpareil said:
So you are against the ideas of goods exchanging hands now? You said it yourself, the government gave the land in exchange for the railroad they built. So the alternatives are: no railway travel at all, or a government built railroad. Neither is "free market" by any means.

Want a railroad, build it yourself, just don't have the government pay for it.
It's not their job.

How is it not free market?

nonpareil said:
Except when you don't like the legal framework. Then it's not "free market" anymore, like copyrights law. :roll:

I disagree with the current monstrosity that is copyright law, if the time lengths of monopoly over ideas were drawn down to a reasonable frame, I would change my stance.

Until then, copyright law is illogical.
You can't own something you don't control.

nonpareil said:
What he claimed is that there has never been a "free market", per your definition, in modern time, so of course there's never a monopolies in a "free market" that never exists. And he's right.

Of course he is, kind of rebuts your "One of the problems with the market is the natural tendency to consolidate which creates monopolies."

There is no example of that being true without government getting involved and granting privilege and/or subsidy.

nonpareil · Jan 12, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
Sorry I didn't say that at all, you have to put words in my mouth to make a point I see.

Except I did not say you did. Learn to read properly. will ya?

nonpareil said:
It's their work. If you want to abolish patent and coryrights law, come out and say it so we know that there's no point arguing with you.

Microsoft was awarded a copyright and not a patent, which is incorrect for them to have.
Operating systems are utility devices and should be patented not copyrighted.

I'm not going to argue with you about what should be given copyrights or patent. Frankly, I'm not a lawyer and aren't qualified to do so. Neither are you, I believe. And I see no relevance to the point that copyright law exists. If that is the reason for the rise of the monopolies, it still exist, and it means the free market solution envisioned by Ron Paul is a pipe dream.

Technically its not stealing at all, you have to remove something from another person in order for it to be stealing.

That's your definition. Not the Law's definition.

The state allowed these companies to exist in their monopolistic form and even financed a portion of some of their growth through subsidy.

Never said no government, not one time.
You guys seem to have a problem addressing the facts that these companies all received some sort of privilege from the state in order to exist as a monopoly.

He pointed out that some of them took the privileges for themselves through gun and violence. Your counter arguement was: Is violence legal? So you use your subjective judgement about when a government should interfere or not; when the interference is part of the "free market" or not. I do have problems following a subjective arguement like that.

Legal framework is , enforcing valid contracts and prevention of fraud and/or force against another.

That is what governments are established to do.

According to you.

Want a railroad, build it yourself, just don't have the government pay for it.
It's not their job.

How is it not free market?

Because the "free market" solution to have no railroad. So it's really "no market".

Yours is the kind of response that make the whole Libertarian free-market idea sounds like bull****. If the land are not granted, where to build it? Who's going to take that kind of risk without some promise of returns? What about the fact that the agreement was made by a popular government? It's easy to say "if you want it, build it yourself". But what happens when nothing get built?

I disagree with the current monstrosity that is copyright law, if the time lengths of monopoly over ideas were drawn down to a reasonable frame, I would change my stance.

Until then, copyright law is illogical.
You can't own something you don't control.

I think you understand the need for such law if you can say that if the time "were drawn down to a reasonable frame", but the correct length of time is just your opinion. Everyone has their own. It doesn't have meaning in the context of this debate.

Of course he is, kind of rebuts your "One of the problems with the market is the natural tendency to consolidate which creates monopolies."

There is no example of that being true without government getting involved and granting privilege and/or subsidy.

:doh I hate it when I have to give logic lessons.

Let's see how this example works: I like dark chocolate (market have a tendency to consolidate), I plan to buy 3 bars at the shop (this many will grow to control a certain size of the market). The shop has a discount and if I buy 3, they give 1 free (some government policy can be said to encourage monopolies). Since I buy 3 bars and received the discount (there are more monopolies with the help of the government than there might have been otherwise), so we must conclude that I don't like chocolate and only buy them because of the discount? :roll:

Ron Paul's ideas no longer fringe

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist

Voluntary

CrusaderRabbit08

samsmart

nonpareil

Harry Guerrilla

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

PeteEU

Harry Guerrilla

PeteEU

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation

Harry Guerrilla

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Zinc Route

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Skateguy

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

nonpareil

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Dav

Zyphlin

Harry Guerrilla

nonpareil