Land of the Free

Didn't see this as my name wasn't quoted.

Not a free market. We don't have one. And definitely not the state.

Obamacare's MLR 'Bomb' Will Create Private Insurance Monopolies and Drive Premiums Skyward. Hallelujah! - Forbes

Competition over what? The economy? Security? Education? Dealing drugs? Arms dealing? Medical care? Pharmaceuticals? Banks? The media? Currency? Food distribution? Communications technology? What substances you're allowed to ingest? The right to kill? The internet? Property rights? Airspace? Intellectual property rights?

Let me rephrase.

What makes you believe competition will stay alive in anarchy?

What's stopping all the electricity companies to consolidate and own all the power infrastructure couple of days after anarchy is implemented? Don't tell me that a monopoly is OK with you. It goes right against the principle of free markets.

What's stopping all the security agencies to consolidate, stage false flag attacks and then demand 15% of your income to "protect" you? Competition will not last in anarchy.

What's stopping me to hire someone to kill all poor people in a distant village where security services are not "economically viable"?

inb4 "if they are weak, they should die"

What's hilarious is that you believe that you own anything you vcompete for now. You own nothing. Car? House? Money? You own none of that. They can take it all anytime they want.

You don't own yourself. Maybe one of the sites you hit with a web 2.0 package (no offense, service looks good) decides to press charges for content you posted on their site. Maybe they find something an article spinner put out damaging.

They don't even need that to wipe you out, confiscate your so-called possessions and lock you away. That's one of a million reasons they could manufacture to ruin you. It happens every day.

What's hilarious is they ruin 1,000's of innocent lives daily, but it hasn't happened to you yet. And if it does (assuming you live), people just like you will think it's hilarious, the only people who will care are the "noobs' you're condescending right now.

They did not take it all from Lewrockwell and Hans Hoppe. These 2 guys are selling their books just fine.

What makes you believe that a security company or a bank can't take all you have in an anarchical society? Especially when they succeed in establishing a monopoly, they can force whatever harsh rules they want.

I'm not defending all actions of any government. You do have to keep fighting to ensure your rights stay. If your freedom is being taken away, it is because people are being a lot more pussy than they were before. They can only grab as much freedoms as you allow them to.

I'm sorry but you noobs are really hilarious
 


God-bless-America.jpg
 
What makes you believe competition will stay alive in anarchy?

What's stopping all the electricity companies to consolidate and own all the power infrastructure couple of days after anarchy is implemented? Don't tell me that a monopoly is OK with you. It goes right against the principle of free markets.

What's stopping all the security agencies to consolidate, stage false flag attacks and then demand 15% of your income to "protect" you? Competition will not last in anarchy.


What is stopping Walmart, Target, and Kohl's from consolidating? Why didn't Circuit City consolidate with Best Buy? Why doesn't Microsoft consolidate with Apple? Why doesn't Gibson Guitars consolidate with Kramer and Ibanez? Why doesn't Nike consolidate with New Balance? Why doesn't the small deli down my street consolidate with the deli three streets over? And why do they then not consolidate with every other deli in my city?

Is it your argument that we need a monopolizing force (i.e. the state) to ensure that monopolies do not form?

How firm a grasp do you have on basic economics? Do you understand the reasons monopolies form in the first place? Can you point to a single natural monopoly that has occurred in the absence of state intervention? If you cannot do so empirically, can you do so praxeologically?

Here are a few places to start educating yourself:

The Myth of Natural Monopoly - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

Liberalism, Cartels, Monopolies, and

http://mises.org/etexts/armentanomonopoly.pdf

http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_4/1_4_1.pdf

The above is merely a beginning. It's a place to start. If you want to limit yourself to saying Hoppe and Rockwell are dreamers, or that "you guys are so out of touch with reality...", I'll leave you to it.
 
What is stopping Walmart, Target, and Kohl's from consolidating? Why didn't Circuit City consolidate with Best Buy? Why doesn't Microsoft consolidate with Apple? Why doesn't Gibson Guitars consolidate with Kramer and Ibanez? Why doesn't Nike consolidate with New Balance? Why doesn't the small deli down my street consolidate with the deli three streets over? And why do they then not consolidate with every other deli in my city?

Is it your argument that we need a monopolizing force (i.e. the state) to ensure that monopolies do not form?

Moxie, can you switch sides and dig up something here?

None of what you said is relevant to my posts. But it is expected, because you obviously don't have the answers.

I do appreciate that you want peace and liberty. BUT I'm sorry to have to break your little delusion.

You have been brainwashed by anarchists. You are part of the sheeple (the anarchist sheeple)

How firm a grasp do you have on basic economics? Do you understand the reasons monopolies form in the first place? Can you point to a single natural monopoly that has occurred in the absence of state intervention? If you cannot do so empirically, can you do so praxeologically?

Here are a few places to start educating yourself:

The Myth of Natural Monopoly - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

Liberalism, Cartels, Monopolies, and

http://mises.org/etexts/armentanomonopoly.pdf

http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_4/1_4_1.pdf

The above is merely a beginning. It's a place to start. If you want to limit yourself to saying Hoppe and Rockwell are dreamers, or that "you guys are so out of touch with reality...", I'll leave you to it.

I'll give you that I have a grasp on economics, though it does not help your argument by saying that I don't know economics.

If you still want to judge me, first prove you have an above average IQ and are not even slightly retarded.

Do you realize how much time these circle jerk discussions consume? One could be ranking more sites and raking in more $$$$ instead
 
I risk getting trolled by delusional welfare recipients here who have nothing to do but to post rubbish online.

It is OK to not be a pussy and oppose government policies (helps keep it in check) but suggesting anarchy as a replacement for your government in good old Europe is idiotic.

It's all about choosing the lesser evil.

Lets put a rough guess. The ratio of evil nature of UK government Vs. UK Anarchy would be like 1:35 (THAT'S HUUUUGE!)
 

Moxie, can you switch sides and dig up something here?


You're so sure of your position. Surely you have some of your own sources.

None of what you said is relevant to my posts. But it is expected, because you obviously don't have the answers.

I do appreciate that you want peace and liberty. BUT I'm sorry to have to break your little delusion.

You have been brainwashed by anarchists. You are part of the sheeple (the anarchist sheeple)



I'll give you that I have a grasp on economics, though it does not help your argument by saying that I don't know economics.

If you still want to judge me, first prove you have an above average IQ and are not even slightly retarded.

Do you realize how much time these circle jerk discussions consume? One could be ranking more sites and raking in more $$$$ instead

Everything Jake posted is relevant to your claim that monopolies would rise up and crush the market.

It's kinda shitty to receive evidence that you asked for, and then not consider it. Especially when you make rebuttals without any evidence.

The only way a business could monopolize an industry in a free market would be by offering the best product/price, which isn't easy to do given the subjectivity of value. It's even harder when you can't violently force people to buy your products through government.

There's always room for competition. Unless of course the market is closed to new competition via regulation. Even then, many markets are able to thrive under burdensome restrictions. Even violent monopolies aren't able to fully suppress the benefits of voluntary trade.

What I'm getting at is this: even the largest, most violent monopoly ever in existence can't fully stomp out the competition, what do we have to fear/lose by no longer endorsing the violence of government? If you fear monopolies so much, why do you so adamantly defend the state?

This idea that government is this regulatory condom that saves us from evil capitalists is so backwards. Government is not here to save you. They're here to facilitate corporate ass raping of the people.
 
TBH I'm not sure. I'm not saying what he stands for is wrong, I just can't get past the fact he is part of the problem and willing so. I'm not sure the confusion is good for the message either.
What if he is ONLY doing all of this as a educational campaign? Years of congress included?

There is no better way of educating than leading by example, and the government simply will not let anybody lead without being elected.


Read Ron Paul he's great, he talks about abolishing taxation and liberty.
Wow this Ron Paul fellow is amazing he really opened my eyes to the corruption of Government.
Vote for Ron Paul!
Wait what?!?
I have never told any person to Vote for Paul, unless they were an elected Delegate... I see now that the system is so rigged that even when we have 7 states full of delegates voting for Paul the establishment cheats and won't honor their own rules anyway though. They may soon be reminded of JFK's words on the matter.


You will have competition initially, but what is stopping all the companies to merge and then rape you all from the next day onwards?
FREE MARKETS.

Again, learn what that means.

The idea of it in your head is wildly off... We've posted plenty of links to sources of information to show you what it means, but you just won't read them. Does the topic Scare you or do you think you just know it already? -Because it's obvious to everyone here that you don't.


Then buy out or eliminate all new competition. This happens all the time, maybe just not in YOUR country.
It happens here too, because our markets ARE NOT FREE.


Anarchy can't last in the real world. Free markets will cease to exist after quick consolidation of companies.
It only can't last in a world with mob rule. Anarchy is the solution to that mob rule.


The real rape begins when those with the real power consolidate (banks, security agencies, etc.)
Clearly you still don't understand what a free market is here or you wouldn't believe it likely for them to consolidate.

I'm don't endorse many actions of the governments, but it is all about choosing the lesser evil.
Only in the heads of fools like those who vote.

The way to solve the real problem is to root out the most basic evil, and get it all out. You can only do that with Anarchy. Of course it's in your politician's best interest to tell you otherwise.


You guys are so out of touch with reality that you want to destroy the system just because some private companies are able to take advantage of it.
The American system was destroyed in 1913. It was dead and buried, extremely unconstitutional since back then... And then FDR piled on a bunch of socialist crap years later and then half of the administrations since raped it more and more until we have laws on the books saying how it's now legal to literally assasinate us without trials. Which part of the system exactly would you have us save?


In your country, dreamers such as Hans hoppe, Lew Rockwell have the freedom to speak whatever they want to, even if that is entirely bullshit. Have them say all that in Thailand or China, I can promise you 100% they will be either shot or arrested on treason charges, maybe given the lethal injection.
BWAHAHAHAHA.... Thais don't shoot you for freely speaking out. For fucks sake they don't even shoot you for throwing an actual revolution downtown and burning down the megamalls! All those red-shirters are back driving taxis as we speak.

The Chinese do indeed have their lack of freedom in that area but then you'd be comparing us to the worst case of communism on the planet. Are you sure that's the best example you'd like to compare america to?


What's stopping all the electricity companies to consolidate and own all the power infrastructure couple of days after anarchy is implemented? Don't tell me that a monopoly is OK with you. It goes right against the principle of free markets.
1. No, monopolies are not against the principle of free markets. They can happen, but they are NEVER as bad as anyone thinks they will be. Most products and services have a limited shelf life, like Ma Bell did. (The old US Phone system) We were so afriad of the phone monopoly they had here in the US in the 1980's that the US Gov ripped them apart into regions so they'd have to compete with each other... At great trouble and expense... All to be wasted because a few years later cell phones were invented and then the internet was too. Few people even use any of that infrastructure today.

2. Electric companies seem like a good example for you until you realize that there are other ways to get or make electricity. Humans are extremely inventive and like with everything else we're allowed to do, we will find a way to circumvent something like the grid in a more affordable manner. 9 times out of 10 it's a government regulation stopping us from doing so.

In fact I'm more than certain that if governments and patent laws (enforced by governments) were not holding us back, we wouldn't even be paying for power at all anymore. It'd be as free and accessible as air.


What's stopping all the security agencies to consolidate, stage false flag attacks and then demand 15% of your income to "protect" you? Competition will not last in anarchy.
Again, competition = Anarchy.

What's stopping them is again the free market.


What's stopping me to hire someone to kill all poor people in a distant village where security services are not "economically viable"?
Courts? Cheaper security?

Sure, you could do that as some kind of monster, I suppose, but the better question here is what would be your incentive?

It really annoys me when people ask about actions that no one would have an incentive to do. That's just wasting my time.



What makes you believe that a security company or a bank can't take all you have in an anarchical society? Especially when they succeed in establishing a monopoly, they can force whatever harsh rules they want.
Again, free market.

If your freedom is being taken away, it is because people are being a lot more pussy than they were before.
And who pussified them exactly?

Who would have the incentive, motive, and means to pull off such a mass pussification?

Research John Taylor Gatto for that answer if you doubt it.

In light of this information, what other response would be proper than resorting to anarchy?




Great, someone else doesn't understand how free markets work either. I'll give you an B+ for effort though. :thumbsup:



You have been brainwashed by anarchists. You are part of the sheeple (the anarchist sheeple)
I know this wasn't aimed at me but man, that was some insulting shit. And after he posted all of those perfectly good answers to your question, too!

Jake is one of the smartest guys on here, you had better hope that you do not get a response from him. You're certainly not worth his time to do so.
 
What if he is ONLY doing all of this as a educational campaign? Years of congress included?

There is no better way of educating than leading by example, and the government simply will not let anybody lead without being elected.

Why does he have to lead at all, why cant he just share his knowledge. He has wrote many books that espouse what he stands for, why does he also need to be an elected official as well.

I have never told any person to Vote for Paul, unless they were an elected Delegate... I see now that the system is so rigged that even when we have 7 states full of delegates voting for Paul the establishment cheats and won't honor their own rules anyway though. They may soon be reminded of JFK's words on the matter.

I know you never said that. It wasn't directed at you or any one else, I was just giving an example of what I would consider the dangers of the confusion.

Like in my warden example, its the hypocrisy that turns people away and gives ammunition to his enemies.

It far to easy for his enemies to claim "Ron Paul hates the Government, yet is an elected official.". And it would be true.

His message is easily corrupted by people who oppose what he stands for.
 
Why does he have to lead at all, why cant he just share his knowledge. He has wrote many books that espouse what he stands for, why does he also need to be an elected official as well.
I don't know anyone at all who has made so many converts to the cause of liberty than that elected official. If he was just a writer/blogger/soothsayer then we could expect his audience to have gained the notoriety of Lew Rockwell's, I'd suppose.


Like in my warden example, its the hypocrisy that turns people away and gives ammunition to his enemies.

It far to easy for his enemies to claim "Ron Paul hates the Government, yet is an elected official.". And it would be true.

His message is easily corrupted by people who oppose what he stands for.
You've got a point, but weigh this against the seas of converts and ask yourself if the future would have been more or less full of liberty lovers had he done it the old fashioned way.

He is clearly a deeply driven man, more so than anyone since Ghandi. He never would have been satisfied only helping some people who bought his books... What would you have him do, pull together a militia and march on washington?
 
What would you have him do, pull together a militia and march on washington?

I wouldn't have him do anything, he is his own man and free to do what he decides is best.

I'm just pointing out the problem I have with his politics and that its hypocritical. Same as I would for Alan Greenspan, since he claims to be an Objectivist.
 
I wouldn't have him do anything, he is his own man and free to do what he decides is best.
Then let me rephrase because this should be a really interesting answer...

What can a true freedom fighter here do if they have the drive, will, money, and energy to take it a level or two higher than just writing books and evangelizing freedom from their desk as much as possible?

In our current environment, I see no options between spreading the word through big book tours, and getting armed and bloody. What can one of us do inbetween those levels of involvement?
 
He is part of the Government and while some of his policies may be more in line with the free market and Libertarianism, he is and always will be part of a system that seeks to remove your rights, as a person, as a community and as a nation.

Ron is not a bad guy, he just tried for far to long to make a difference inside the system. You can't. He found that out and decided to run presidential campaigns exclusively in order to give liberty ideas a platform and he succeeded in that like no other in history.

Why a benevolent ruler is an impossibility:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U]IfYouWereKing.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]
 
What can a true freedom fighter here do if they have the drive, will, money, and energy to take it a level or two higher than just writing books and evangelizing freedom from their desk as much as possible?

In our current environment, I see no options between spreading the word through big book tours, and getting armed and bloody. What can one of us do inbetween those levels of involvement?

Work on yourself, deny the government their loot at any opportunity (within reason), withdraw from the official system as much as you can (within reason), educate others one on one or through broadcasting, live your principles, not just talk about them, raise your children peacefully...
 
In our current environment, I see no options between spreading the word through big book tours, and getting armed and bloody. What can one of us do inbetween those levels of involvement?

From an individual perspective I think Aylian got it right.

But I'm going to give your question some more though, since I assume your asking how one can spread to message to greater audience than just friends and family.
 
Work on yourself, deny the government their loot at any opportunity (within reason), withdraw from the official system as much as you can (within reason), educate others one on one or through broadcasting, live your principles, not just talk about them, raise your children peacefully...
So.... Seasteading then? Surely something can be done that is more effective than internally perfecting myself & yapping about it on a forum.
 
What is stopping Walmart, Target, and Kohl's from consolidating? Why didn't Circuit City consolidate with Best Buy? Why doesn't Microsoft consolidate with Apple? Why doesn't Gibson Guitars consolidate with Kramer and Ibanez?

While they may not consolidate due to self interest, wouldn't they use price fixing and other psuedo-monopolistic behavior if not restricted by law?

Why doesn't the small deli down my street consolidate with the deli three streets over? And why do they then not consolidate with every other deli in my city?

Self Interest. Yet their product has such low cost of entry/exit competition can rise too quickly.

Is it your argument that we need a monopolizing force (i.e. the state) to ensure that monopolies do not form?

While I did read the first referenced article with the television on, it seems that they are saying that the temporary monopoly will form and that even the competitor may join it as a means of maximization - this monopoly will be short lived - but by short lived it seems they are referring to a generation or maybe two. Seems like it is all good in the long run, but if you live during the monopolistic years, sucks for you. Maybe I read it wrong - did I?