4 ms·

Guess all you want, and I'll do likewise. My guesses are based off the fact that virtually every one of my fellow Americans I talk to don't understand why we ha

by nknight 15y ago

Guess all you want, and I'll do likewise. My guesses are based off the fact that virtually every one of my fellow Americans I talk to don't understand why we have antitrust laws in the first place, and think the government getting involved in these matters is bad, right up until it bites them in the ass personally. Then, of course, it's witchhunt time.

GFKjunior 15y ago
As a very hardline libertarian, read anarchist, I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. Even in the most libertarian leaning circles people like at least a little government regulation. I say this as a person who was born and raised in Texas and attends gun shows regularly. The people in attendance are the kind with automatic rifles (very very illegal), the ones who pay for all their items with gold, want to succeed from the US, or the kind who think the "NWO" is a very real possibility, and even they feel safer with at least a little government protection. One of ex-GF's had a tshirt that read "Permain Basin Gun Club. We don't call the police". Even her family believed in gov regulations for big business and finance. As much as I wished more Americans were libertarian leaning the truth is that they are not.
- nknight 15y ago
  With which statement do you disagree, exactly? Because all I'm saying is what I've observed. Unless you were present when I made these observations and have a better memory than I do, arguing with me about it isn't exactly going to be productive, is it?
mindcrime 15y ago
Count me in as one hardline anarcho-capitalist / libertarian who is opposed to government intervention in something like this. I oppose anything like "government" that purports to do anything more than act as a collective extension to our innate right to self-defense; and take the Zero Aggression Principle seriously.
- lawnchair_larry 15y ago
  This would be an extension of our right to self-defense, and such agreements are quite clearly an act of aggression.
  - mindcrime 15y ago
    I'm afraid I'm having a hard time connecting the dots in such a way to see how an agreement to not do something counts as an act of aggression.
    - TheCowboy 15y ago
      Libertarian views assume that free markets regulate themselves basically due to perfect competition. (Trying to keep this short and simple.) Realistically, you do not always have perfect competition and you have problems with monopoly, oligopoly, etc. Firms are potent enough that their decisions can manipulate markets, and in this it would be labor markets. (Perfect competition assumes that no single firm can manipulate markets.) Libertarians oppose a government presence in markets because they believe the result is inefficiently functioning markets, and we are all worse off. In this case, the firms are manipulating labor markets so that they behave inefficiently to the advantage of the manipulative firms and disadvantage of labor. (This is usually where people try to justify labor unions as a counter to the influence of firms.)
- vidarh 15y ago
  A government is nothing but a concentration of power. In this case these companies are creating a centre of power that is defacto no different from if a de jure government had stepped in with rules against poaching - they represent such a huge market power that their collusion results in a very real exertion of power on everyone else. Being against government intervention without being against corporate intervention is either naive or hypocritical depending on what your basis for it is - history demonstrates just how willing unchecked corporations are to oppress and restrict individual rights in the face of lacking government intervention. In other words: If you take away the government intervention without also weakening corporate power, you're replacing a master that is at least subject to some oversight with warring masters that would not be.
lawnchair_larry 15y ago
There is nothing free about "he who has the gold makes the rules." This seems a bit counter-intuitive to many who are new to the libertarian philosophy, but once past the "tea party 2.0" stage, I think most "libertarians" understand and agree with this.
- nknight 15y ago
  I'm not clear why people are dragging "libertarian" into it. Most people I know wouldn't describe themselves as libertarian, and certainly aren't in their belief system. Libertarians do not have a lock on advocacy of the free market. The most right-wing, Christian-conservative, anti-abortion, pro-war-on-drugs, anti-gay (in the lock them up or kill them sense), I-get-to-decide-how-you-live-your-life man I know is also the one that goes the most apoplectic when government regulates economic matters.
_delirium 15y ago
I can see varying opinions on antitrust laws (especially depending on how you phrase the question), but I have more trouble believing that most Americans are in favor of a completely unrestricted free market. Unless the people I've come into contact with are completely unrepresentative, I'd be really surprised if there were majority support for proposals like, "insider trading should be legalized" and "it should be legal for businesses to discriminate against employees based on their race".

by nknight 15y ago

GFKjunior 15y ago

As a very hardline libertarian, read anarchist, I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. Even in the most libertarian leaning circles people like at least a little government regulation. I say this as a person who was born and raised in Texas and attends gun shows regularly. The people in attendance are the kind with automatic rifles (very very illegal), the ones who pay for all their items with gold, want to succeed from the US, or the kind who think the "NWO" is a very real possibility, and even they feel safer with at least a little government protection. One of ex-GF's had a tshirt that read "Permain Basin Gun Club. We don't call the police". Even her family believed in gov regulations for big business and finance. As much as I wished more Americans were libertarian leaning the truth is that they are not.

nknight 15y ago
With which statement do you disagree, exactly? Because all I'm saying is what I've observed. Unless you were present when I made these observations and have a better memory than I do, arguing with me about it isn't exactly going to be productive, is it?

mindcrime 15y ago

Count me in as one hardline anarcho-capitalist / libertarian who is opposed to government intervention in something like this. I oppose anything like "government" that purports to do anything more than act as a collective extension to our innate right to self-defense; and take the Zero Aggression Principle seriously.

lawnchair_larry 15y ago
This would be an extension of our right to self-defense, and such agreements are quite clearly an act of aggression.
- mindcrime 15y ago
  I'm afraid I'm having a hard time connecting the dots in such a way to see how an agreement to not do something counts as an act of aggression.
  - TheCowboy 15y ago
    Libertarian views assume that free markets regulate themselves basically due to perfect competition. (Trying to keep this short and simple.) Realistically, you do not always have perfect competition and you have problems with monopoly, oligopoly, etc. Firms are potent enough that their decisions can manipulate markets, and in this it would be labor markets. (Perfect competition assumes that no single firm can manipulate markets.) Libertarians oppose a government presence in markets because they believe the result is inefficiently functioning markets, and we are all worse off. In this case, the firms are manipulating labor markets so that they behave inefficiently to the advantage of the manipulative firms and disadvantage of labor. (This is usually where people try to justify labor unions as a counter to the influence of firms.)
vidarh 15y ago
A government is nothing but a concentration of power. In this case these companies are creating a centre of power that is defacto no different from if a de jure government had stepped in with rules against poaching - they represent such a huge market power that their collusion results in a very real exertion of power on everyone else. Being against government intervention without being against corporate intervention is either naive or hypocritical depending on what your basis for it is - history demonstrates just how willing unchecked corporations are to oppress and restrict individual rights in the face of lacking government intervention. In other words: If you take away the government intervention without also weakening corporate power, you're replacing a master that is at least subject to some oversight with warring masters that would not be.

lawnchair_larry 15y ago

There is nothing free about "he who has the gold makes the rules." This seems a bit counter-intuitive to many who are new to the libertarian philosophy, but once past the "tea party 2.0" stage, I think most "libertarians" understand and agree with this.

nknight 15y ago
I'm not clear why people are dragging "libertarian" into it. Most people I know wouldn't describe themselves as libertarian, and certainly aren't in their belief system. Libertarians do not have a lock on advocacy of the free market. The most right-wing, Christian-conservative, anti-abortion, pro-war-on-drugs, anti-gay (in the lock them up or kill them sense), I-get-to-decide-how-you-live-your-life man I know is also the one that goes the most apoplectic when government regulates economic matters.

_delirium 15y ago

I can see varying opinions on antitrust laws (especially depending on how you phrase the question), but I have more trouble believing that most Americans are in favor of a completely unrestricted free market. Unless the people I've come into contact with are completely unrepresentative, I'd be really surprised if there were majority support for proposals like, "insider trading should be legalized" and "it should be legal for businesses to discriminate against employees based on their race".