Not fully, by any means (you really need to let that one go). Either way, in pretty much all other areas not concerning monopolies, he agrees with me way, way more than any other assclown in the running.
well, the weird thing is that the libertarian stance on monopolies is really fundamental to libertarianism as a whole. libertarianism is essentially the philosophy that you never need protection from the market provided by the government. i mean this is fundamental to libertarianism in almost the same sense that environmental protection is to the green party. libertarianism is a wildly extreme capitalistic philosophy, and not moderate by any modern stadard. i suggest you read up on it. it appears to me you do accept the fundamental premises of libertarianism. anyone who is sane accepts the social planks in the libertarian platform, thats not all that different than many mainstream democrats. what i am basically saying is that from what you have said here, you are really miles away from being a libertarian, and i dont think you really understand exactly what a libertarian is. i think alot of people like to say they are libertarian without knowing what it means in terms of actual policy. if a libertarian was president and actually did what he wanted, he would be virtually revolutionary.
How kind of you. I don't know why you're convinced that I never did anything of that sort before solely because I disagree with a single stance. What you can't seem to comprehend is that seeing an issue differently isn't an automatic grounds for disqualification, and it certainly doesn't mean that I don't support the fundamentals of that party. Hell, a lot of these Republicans support bigger government, which is clearly a fundamental contradiction. You've wasted too much time on this petty issue. I've explained to you at length the importance of preserving a free market. You disagree. Fine. But I still favor smaller government (including the elimination of most government agencies and programs), lower taxes, individual responsibility, and unfettered personal liberties. Yeah, that sounds miles away from Libertarianism.
yes, by defining the free market as the opposite of the way a libertarian would. you have explained at lengeth how directly and completely you oppose the main theory behind libertarianism. what you are missing here is that libertarianism basically exists to oppose people who think like you on the free market. like i said, your opposition to the libertarian definition (right or wrong) of free markets is like a green party member opposing environmental protection and then claiming to be green. well, i guess you could say the republican party is changing. thats just the way republicans are now. most of the republicans here agree with bush, the figurehead of republicanism, whereas you stand in direct opposition with badnarik on the fundamental role of government. certainly i agree that it is perfecly reasonable to pick and choose what planks of a party platform you agree with. but your positions indicate a real lack of understanding.
That's interesting. I didn't realize that Libertarians favored governmental oversight of production & price-fixing, as well as the absence of competition. Thanks for the heads-up. Like I said, once competition is removed, the free market no longer exists. Yeah, you're right. Because I don't agree with monopolies, that means that I completely oppose the preservation of personal liberty (the actual fundamental ideal). How much more time are you going to waste trying to dictate my political preference? My ideals are quite simple, regardless of whether or not you think they're in congruence with whomever or whatever.
i dont follow. libertarians oppose governmental oversight. only the government has the power to remove competetition, everything else is voluntary. thats what you dont get. the market is ll about choice. and you can always choose to buy or sell whatever you want as long as the government deosnt force you to do otherwise. you actually do favor the government creating monopolies by not allowing fair competition. when you restrict the price of oil, you shut out investment into alternatives. like if i was working on solar power and the government restricted oil profits, it would make it far less likely i would get capital invested in my efforts, because the government would be manipulating the market. this is what libertarians oppose, and you do not understand.
But if I'm such a non-Libertarian, then I must believe what I wrote (hint: I was being a smartass). Right. And I've never favored governmental removal of competition. Where's the problem? And how is this opposed to anti-trust legislation? Huh? Not allowing fair competition? The fundamental opposition to monopolies is that they eliminate competition. If the government says, 'No, it is not ok for Company X to merge with Company Y because those are the only two manufacturers of product Z; therefore, they would be monopolizing the market for product Z, thus eliminating competition and denying the consumer a choice' (yes, I realize the consumer has the choice to just not buy), how is that creating a monopoly? Sounds like just the opposite to me. That's correct. But I do not believe that I've ever favored that. Have I been preturbed over the price of oil? Absolutely. Do I think that companies should not be allowed to collude and fix market prices? Yes, because that is essentially a monopoly considering the product is basically the same. But I don't think there should be a lid on the amount of profit that they can make.
breaking up what you define as a monopoly takes away freedom of choice for lots of people. the rights of the people who own the business to sell their products for the price they see fit, the rights of the people to buy them. as well as the rights of their competitors to try and do better and exploit whatever pricing mistakes this company might be making. there is a battle for market share, and by resticting one comapny from acting freely, you ruin it. obviously if you own the trust, the anti trust legislation violates your freedom to operate your business, which was sellin products to people who were voluntarily purchsing them. you will say "but we are forced to buy gas!". but that is lie. you are not forced to buy anything. well, except the government fees for your anti trust cases enforcement and investigation. then act like it. i dunno why sellers cant collude, buyers certainly do boycotts, which is ovbiously collusion. should you ban those too if collusion is wrong? if people boycott a product because of high prices (and this is effectively what happens when something actually gets too expensive as opposed to when the government says it is too expensive) then arent they colluding to meddle with prices in the same way sellers do? i apologize for going in circles, but there is one factor you are missing here. only the government has the power of force behind them. nobody except the government ever made you buy anything. it was always your free choice. nobody ever took anything of yours by force except the government. everything you ever sold, you picked the price for it. do you at least understand my point that if the oil companies collude to raise prices, that increases the amount of investment in alternatives, which necessarily speeds us away from dependence on oil? and this is one of the great things about the free market, it can make changes when needed. thats the whole reason it works. that is the invisible hand described by adam smith. and that is what breaks down when you prevent people from acting in their own interests by allowing the government to take sides to tip the scales in favor of either buyers or sellers. i think you are on the verge of understanding, you only resist because you want to be right.
