I would like to spend an hour on a major TV news network discussing my worldview and musings on life. Must a network grant me access to their cameras for an hour? If not, have they violated my "right to speak on TV"?
Now imagine that I come to an arrangement with a major TV news network and they agree to give me my hour of time, but the government steps in and says I'm not allowed to speak on TV. Have they violated my rights?
Likewise, the government saying "You can't use the internet any more" is a violation of my rights, but Comcast saying "You haven't paid your cable bill, so we're shutting you off" isn't.
Of course it does. The FDA can choose (under threat of violence if its demands are not met) to block products from the market entirely. If you think big pharma doesn't use this power to profit itself, I invite you to look closer into the people who run the FDA and where they go after their appointments.
No one would normally claim that the government is beyond engaging in corruption to financially benefit itself, but as soon as someone brings up the profit incentive of private business, suddenly every unelected bureaucrat becomes an angel, wholly motivated to benefit the public and not themselves (ignoring, of course, that the bureaucrat and the corporate CEO are often the exact same person).
Much like the right to bear arms does not imply that you have a right to be provided with those arms, I would argue that you have right to not be prevented from using the internet by the government, but that's different from a right to be provided internet access.
The revolving door between big pharma and the FDA and the regulatory capture that such a situation brings might come as a shock to you.
The only difference between the FDA and a free-market third party is that we can't get away from the FDA, making the FDA the perfect method for big corporations to bend us over a barrel.
I'm convinced that the foundation for almost every problem facing the world today can be traced back to the one-two punch of central banking and intellectual property law. To the extent that we scale those back or eliminate them, I believe almost every sector of the economy can be improved.
Those regulatory bodies are the ones that prop up monopolies at every opportunity.
Consider a law that mandates a million dollars of testing for every new line of child toy. Seems like a great blow against the evil toy companies at first glance, but the first group in line to push for that law are the major toy companies, because while they can afford it, it will no doubt drive all smaller competition out of the market. And don't forget, they also have the resources to skimp on that testing anyway and either hide it or pay lawyers to tie up lawsuits on the subject indefinitely. Win-win for the monopolies.
The more power we give the government in the market, hoping it will benefit us, the more the corporations who run the government will use those powers for their benefit.
Libertarians such as myself argue that the regulations themselves are what makes large, wealthy businesses even larger and more wealthy.
If you know that corporations control the government, and the government controls you, then what good is it to give the government more power? You already know who's going to be wielding it, after all.
My definition of a "true free market" is one free of violence or the threat of violence. And while I'm sympathetic to the "voluntaryist" strain of libertarians, I'm personally not convinced that complete anarchy can give us the "most free" market under that definition, so I still consider myself a minarchist.
We need a a set of regulations in order to ensure fair competition and fair rights for workers.
The key here is the word "fair", and I'm sure we don't see eye to eye on what that word means.
Libertarians are split on whether prevention of both force and fraud are valid functions of government, or only force, but I think the former constitutes the larger segment of libertarian opinion.
Regardless, in a free market situation I would probably only buy food that had been given a stamp of approval by a trusted third-party (like FDA approval, except without all the regulatory-capture and rampant corruption).
You assume that libertarians do not also hate corporations. Since corporations only exist due to special protections granted to them by the government, many (most?) libertarians (myself included) do not consider them to be actors in, nor an accurate representation of, a true free market.
Some may consider that a small nitpick, but I personally find it to be an important one. When I engage people in discussions about free market principles, I make sure to let people know that I am just as disgusted with our corporately-owned government as the next guy.
Better than some taxes, since at least they are more targeted than a general income tax, but they still leave room for improvement due to differences in engine efficiency, purchases of fuel not related to roadway use, etc.
Wouldn't be as hard as you think. I (gladly) pay for toll roads where I live now, and I don't even have to think about it except when my transmitter comes unstuck from behind my rear-view mirror.
Sorry, I'm a "taxes are theft" kind of guy, and I sometimes forget that many people believe that taking things under the threat of bodily harm is okay, as long as it's done by someone with a badge on behalf of someone behind a podium.
Either way, the same logic applies. Not everyone in a city pays the same into the system, just as not everyone in the country takes out the same amount from the system, so working on averages won't necessarily make the system any fairer.
Would you like to see the roadways that you use dug up? Those are subsidized by taxes, and are essential for everything from personal transportation to industry.
I support tolls. Let the people who use the roads pay for the roads.
Do you seriously want to depend upon unaccountable businesses to provide safe water?
I would argue that businesses are much more accountable than politicians. And given the shitty quality of the tap water where I live (generously provided by our wise government overlords), I would gladly shop around for better water. In fact, many people do, as it now comes in bottles (sold by ruthless corporations, no less, who, if popular sentiment is correct, just want all their customers to get sick and die, which they will somehow translate into a profit).
It's a red herring anyway, along the lines of "Group A steals from Group B so it's okay for Group B to steal from Group A". Statistics can give you an idea of the overall size of the problem, but justice always requires an individual solution. If someone steals from you, you are owed recompense from that individual, and not every individual that shares some real or imagined group affiliation with them.
A strawman is when someone sets up a position that their opponent did not take, merely so they can have something knock it down (e.g. glrotate says he doesn't want to subsidize people living in the country, and sumdumgai sets up and knocks down an argument about no one ever living in the country at all). Where did I set up such a position?
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to spend an hour on a major TV news network discussing my worldview and musings on life. Must a network grant me access to their cameras for an hour? If not, have they violated my "right to speak on TV"?
Now imagine that I come to an arrangement with a major TV news network and they agree to give me my hour of time, but the government steps in and says I'm not allowed to speak on TV. Have they violated my rights?
Likewise, the government saying "You can't use the internet any more" is a violation of my rights, but Comcast saying "You haven't paid your cable bill, so we're shutting you off" isn't.
Of course it does. The FDA can choose (under threat of violence if its demands are not met) to block products from the market entirely. If you think big pharma doesn't use this power to profit itself, I invite you to look closer into the people who run the FDA and where they go after their appointments.
No one would normally claim that the government is beyond engaging in corruption to financially benefit itself, but as soon as someone brings up the profit incentive of private business, suddenly every unelected bureaucrat becomes an angel, wholly motivated to benefit the public and not themselves (ignoring, of course, that the bureaucrat and the corporate CEO are often the exact same person).
Much like the right to bear arms does not imply that you have a right to be provided with those arms, I would argue that you have right to not be prevented from using the internet by the government, but that's different from a right to be provided internet access.
The revolving door between big pharma and the FDA and the regulatory capture that such a situation brings might come as a shock to you.
The only difference between the FDA and a free-market third party is that we can't get away from the FDA, making the FDA the perfect method for big corporations to bend us over a barrel.
I'm convinced that the foundation for almost every problem facing the world today can be traced back to the one-two punch of central banking and intellectual property law. To the extent that we scale those back or eliminate them, I believe almost every sector of the economy can be improved.
Those regulatory bodies are the ones that prop up monopolies at every opportunity.
Consider a law that mandates a million dollars of testing for every new line of child toy. Seems like a great blow against the evil toy companies at first glance, but the first group in line to push for that law are the major toy companies, because while they can afford it, it will no doubt drive all smaller competition out of the market. And don't forget, they also have the resources to skimp on that testing anyway and either hide it or pay lawyers to tie up lawsuits on the subject indefinitely. Win-win for the monopolies.
The more power we give the government in the market, hoping it will benefit us, the more the corporations who run the government will use those powers for their benefit.
Libertarians such as myself argue that the regulations themselves are what makes large, wealthy businesses even larger and more wealthy.
If you know that corporations control the government, and the government controls you, then what good is it to give the government more power? You already know who's going to be wielding it, after all.
Who tells you that the FDA isn't a fraud?
A fair point. Not all corporations are objectively "evil", any more so than all rich people are objectively "evil".
But it's extremely hard to figure out which are which under the current system.
This represents your 'true free market.
My definition of a "true free market" is one free of violence or the threat of violence. And while I'm sympathetic to the "voluntaryist" strain of libertarians, I'm personally not convinced that complete anarchy can give us the "most free" market under that definition, so I still consider myself a minarchist.
We need a a set of regulations in order to ensure fair competition and fair rights for workers.
The key here is the word "fair", and I'm sure we don't see eye to eye on what that word means.
Libertarians are split on whether prevention of both force and fraud are valid functions of government, or only force, but I think the former constitutes the larger segment of libertarian opinion.
Regardless, in a free market situation I would probably only buy food that had been given a stamp of approval by a trusted third-party (like FDA approval, except without all the regulatory-capture and rampant corruption).
You assume that libertarians do not also hate corporations. Since corporations only exist due to special protections granted to them by the government, many (most?) libertarians (myself included) do not consider them to be actors in, nor an accurate representation of, a true free market.
Some may consider that a small nitpick, but I personally find it to be an important one. When I engage people in discussions about free market principles, I make sure to let people know that I am just as disgusted with our corporately-owned government as the next guy.
China will clone it for Iran and start selling copies for one tenth of the price we spend on them in the states. DEY TUK R JERBS!
They probably forgot to put a password on PHPMyAdmin.
Captured US Drone Destroyed By US Drone Strike in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
You must not hang around very many libertarians . . .
Better than some taxes, since at least they are more targeted than a general income tax, but they still leave room for improvement due to differences in engine efficiency, purchases of fuel not related to roadway use, etc.
It's also a false dilemma that we must choose between involuntary taxation and no taxation at all.
Sounds like you should move.
Nah, I'd rather stick around and try to change my country for the better. Only losers cut and run. ;)
(Speaking of false dilemmas, "Institutionalized Theft or Somalia" is a classic!)
Wouldn't be as hard as you think. I (gladly) pay for toll roads where I live now, and I don't even have to think about it except when my transmitter comes unstuck from behind my rear-view mirror.
Sorry, I'm a "taxes are theft" kind of guy, and I sometimes forget that many people believe that taking things under the threat of bodily harm is okay, as long as it's done by someone with a badge on behalf of someone behind a podium.
Either way, the same logic applies. Not everyone in a city pays the same into the system, just as not everyone in the country takes out the same amount from the system, so working on averages won't necessarily make the system any fairer.
Technically, I don't think it's a false dilemma either.
;)
Maybe you just mean that you think I'm wrong? That's a perfectly fine position to take too.
Would you like to see the roadways that you use dug up? Those are subsidized by taxes, and are essential for everything from personal transportation to industry.
I support tolls. Let the people who use the roads pay for the roads.
Do you seriously want to depend upon unaccountable businesses to provide safe water?
I would argue that businesses are much more accountable than politicians. And given the shitty quality of the tap water where I live (generously provided by our wise government overlords), I would gladly shop around for better water. In fact, many people do, as it now comes in bottles (sold by ruthless corporations, no less, who, if popular sentiment is correct, just want all their customers to get sick and die, which they will somehow translate into a profit).
It's a red herring anyway, along the lines of "Group A steals from Group B so it's okay for Group B to steal from Group A". Statistics can give you an idea of the overall size of the problem, but justice always requires an individual solution. If someone steals from you, you are owed recompense from that individual, and not every individual that shares some real or imagined group affiliation with them.
A strawman is when someone sets up a position that their opponent did not take, merely so they can have something knock it down (e.g. glrotate says he doesn't want to subsidize people living in the country, and sumdumgai sets up and knocks down an argument about no one ever living in the country at all). Where did I set up such a position?