Libertarianism vs. Communism - two sides of the same coin?

[_Rick_]

I think Jacques Chirac once said, that Libertarianism is just as bad as communism, or something to that effect. Now he is a politician, so he would say anything to influence the polls, but I have considered the real implications of both, and come to the conclusion, that realistically, there are frightfully few differences in the real implementations of both sets of policies.

I'm basing this on experience with real socialism, and on tendencies that can be observed in relatively free markets.

Now, in socialism, we have a non-elected government, that owns a nations economic capacity. It implements economic plans, distributes wealth according to bureaucratic decisions, and private property is limited outside high ranking party members.

The similarities to a liberalist society, are the following:
While at the start there will be a light government and independent industry, that industry will eventually merger and condense down to a set of monopolies. That is the natural development of the free market. Once a monopoly is established, there are no free-market means of breaking out of it.
I also foresee, that soon the economic power of corporations will be beyond that of the "government", which will thus be powerless, to corporations implementing their law, using their private police and armed forces. Effective government will fall to....the heads of corporations. This is then a similar situation to that in socialism, where there is a non-democratic government, that is also managing all economic activity.
The difference is merely in how the ruling caste got into position. One bases itself off the ring leaders of a revolution, the other off the most successful commercial operation, during the brief phase of the truly free market.

Now, of course, the utopia in both cases is dissimilar, but our experiences with how communisms ideals transferred to reality, should make us also cautious of the libertarian utopia, that depends on people acting with the good of society as their aim. In both cases those that do not act in such a way benefit from it at the cost of those that do, and eventually gain power.

Now, please feel free to point out where you disagree, or how eventually every set of policies will fall down that hole, and we are forced to a cycle of uprisings and revolutions, as a ruling caste will always form, and always exploit the populace

 

[Smoblikat]

I think libertarianism starts out great, but it can never truly happen. People are too evil and greedy to be free. Communism starts out shitty and carries through to the very end that way, it is more consistent and easier to maintain. I am a libertarian and will be to the very end, but I also know that there isnt ANY chance that America will wake up and realize that it makes no sense to vote people in whos goals are to opress and restrict their freedoms. (dems - no guns, no speech, no reason) (republicans - no drugs, little critical thinking, generally biased towards white old men)

 

[Juror No. 8]

The similarities to a liberalist society, are the following:
While at the start there will be a light government and independent industry, that industry will eventually merger and condense down to a set of monopolies. That is the natural development of the free market. Once a monopoly is established, there are no free-market means of breaking out of it.

This is nonsensical.

If monopolies are being created, you don't have a free market. Only government interference in the market can create monopolies, and if you have government interference, you don't have a free market. Government regulation and interference in the market (licensing, cartels, patents, taxes, etc...) is what creates monopolies, not free markets. Since government itself is a monopoly, it can produce nothing but monopolies through its actions.

To blame monopolies on free markets is to put the cart before the horse.

 

[unokitty]

I think Jacques Chirac once said, that Libertarianism is just as bad as communism, or something to that effect...

"All mass movements whether religious, political, radical or reactionary attract the same kind of person. Adherents will often flip from one movement to another. The motivations for mass movements are interchangeable; that religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values differ."
-- The True Believer

Its not just the causes that you mention. If you think about it. There isn't any difference between someone that blindly endorses either of the two main political parties.

Eric Hoffer identified this several decades ago.

“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

Uno

 

[Spungo]

Only government interference in the market can create monopolies, and if you have government interference, you don't have a free market. Government regulation and interference in the market (licensing, cartels, patents, taxes, etc...)

Right now Intel has a near monopoly on desktop computers because software is written for x86 processors and Intel owns the patent on x86. Are you saying that a truly free market should not have a patent system? If so, why would anyone bother to innovate? Why spend billions of dollars researching the best design process if some Chinese company is going to steal the design and sell the final product cheaper?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

This is nonsensical.

If monopolies are being created, you don't have a free market. Only government interference in the market can create monopolies, and if you have government interference, you don't have a free market. Government regulation and interference in the market (licensing, cartels, patents, taxes, etc...) is what creates monopolies, not free markets. Since government itself is a monopoly, it can produce nothing but monopolies through its actions.

To blame monopolies on free markets is to put the cart before the horse.

Let me also add that corporation in and of themselves are nothing more than a creation of government. They would not exist without government support through the tax-code and the court system.

Additionally being that corporations are a invention of government and protected by government there are many Libertarians (along anarcho-capitalists) who reject the notion and the existence of corporate entities. The reasoning is incorporation itself is a means for government to distort the marketplace by allowing owners of businesses to take larger risks without ever really being truly exposed to the actual consequences of their failure in the marketplace.

Now one could argue arguments against this view and in favor by citing many examples where we in society would want business owners to take risk (e.g. emerging markets or with new technology, etc) but the counter-arguments would also be on how reckless many of those risks usually were/are and how they have caused untold damage in the marketplace and society as a whole, e.g. "Too big, too fail."

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Right now Intel has a near monopoly on desktop computers because software is written for x86 processors and Intel owns the patent on x86. Are you saying that a truly free market should not have a patent system? If so, why would anyone bother to innovate? Why spend billions of dollars researching the best design process if some Chinese company is going to steal the design and sell the final product cheaper?

Juror No. 8 can correct me if I'm wrong here.

However IMHO you're completely distorting the original intent of his post and changing it into something else by putting words in his mouth.

What he is saying is that by de facto the implementation of a patent/copyright system is what protects and upholds these monopolies in the marketplace. Since it is government who has enacted this system by which via your own words, "Intel holds a monopoly on the desktop" thus you cannot fault or claim that it so because we have a actual "Free-market" system.

It is inherently a false claim given all the government guarantees, regulations, mandates, already in place in our economy which create unintended (or intended) consequences of propping up monopolies and/or creating distortions in free market functions such as supply and demand (e.g. government contracts and subsidies or price caps), risk versus failure scenarios (labeling and bailing businesses deemed "Too big to fail") , etc

edit:typo

 

[Moonbeam]

I think libertarianism starts out great, but it can never truly happen. People are too evil and greedy to be free. Communism starts out shitty and carries through to the very end that way, it is more consistent and easier to maintain. I am a libertarian and will be to the very end, but I also know that there isnt ANY chance that America will wake up and realize that it makes no sense to vote people in whos goals are to opress and restrict their freedoms. (dems - no guns, no speech, no reason) (republicans - no drugs, little critical thinking, generally biased towards white old men)

I don't know anything about what is being talked about in this thread. It's all crazy to me, but I do know you are wrong about people. People were not born evil and greedy, they were made that way by being put down as children. We were born perfect perhaps with the exception of a few people who are born with no capacity for empathy and whom I would not call really human. Evil is an illusion we have made real by believing in it. It is the product of our ability to think with symbolic language, the capacity to transfer meaning with emotional content in it with works. You were bad and you were made to suffer for it. No child can tolerate such pain and develops a conforming ego to present its perfect self to the world. We died psychically as children because we had to, in order to survive. We turned our backs on our true selves and became separate and alone, detached from the universe with which our minds were once at one in unity.

Libertarianism, whatever else it may be, recognizes this fundamental inalienable truth even though it can't itself explain what that truth is true. Only the understanding of the real origin of evil can and that can be known only by those who have recovered their true selves.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Right now Intel has a near monopoly on desktop computers because software is written for x86 processors and Intel owns the patent on x86. Are you saying that a truly free market should not have a patent system? If so, why would anyone bother to innovate? Why spend billions of dollars researching the best design process if some Chinese company is going to steal the design and sell the final product cheaper?

Human beings innovated and developed technology long before government patents were introduced.

I wonder why they even bothered?

 

[_Rick_]

Let's look at a theoretical Brownian Motion Market: multiple actors, that more or less randomly make gains or losses, grow, shrink, disappear, are replaced, etc.
At some point one market actor will with statistical certainty reach a critical mass, that allows him to "naturally" corner a market. Once that has happened, in a deregulated world, little can be done to stop them.

Patents can be used both as a social measure, by assuring that the invention eventually passes into the public domain, after a reasonable term of exclusivity and forced licensing, or as a capitalist measure, by moving the effort of protecting a trade secret from the inventor to the state. The latter would be the state encouraging innovation-monopolies.

But let's forget about IP, but keep our eye on Intel. They will, within a decade or so, have a monopoly on fabrication processes, judging by the current development. Other industries are similar - if at one point you gain critical capital, you can out-optimize the competition. Amazon for example has so much turn-over that they can run ridiculously thin margins. They are large enough that they can in theory tank a loss for a while. while smaller retailers go bankrupt, then raise their prices when nobody's left.

Creating monopolies is relatively easy. It's the capitalist's goal. It's happened time and time again, in history, and most big corporations have exploited their clout to extinguish smaller competitors. Saying that this was state-sponsored is mostly preposterous.

Also, I find it strange, that Smoblikat can imagine a liberalist utopia, but not a communist one. One is built on the idea of all society working for a common goal, the other is built on the worst elements of society working for the good of society, by working for their own good. Either utopia (I wouldn't call Star Trek communism any more shitty, than Atlas Shrugged liberalism, to pick two examples) is just an utopia: A perfect world, base don unattainable assumptions.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Juror No. 8 can correct me if I'm wrong here.

However IMHO you're completely distorting the original intent of his post and changing it into something else by putting words in his mouth.

What he is saying is that by de facto the implementation of a patent/copyright system is what protects and upholds these monopolies in the marketplace. Since it is government who has enacted this system by which via your own words, "Intel holds a monopoly on the desktop" thus you cannot fault or claim that it so because we have a actual "Free-market" system.

It is inherently a false claim given all the government guarantees, regulations, mandates, already in place in our economy which create unintended (or intended) consequences of propping up monopolies and/or creating distortions in free market function such as supply and supply (e.g. government contracts and subsidies or price caps), risk versus failure scenarios (labeling and bailing businesses deemed "Too big to fail") , etc

Nah, you're doing fine.

You seem to be one of the few people on this board who has cracked his government brainwashing and thought at least a few things through for himself.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Let's look at a theoretical Brownian Motion Market: multiple actors, that more or less randomly make gains or losses, grow, shrink, disappear, are replaced, etc.
At some point one market actor will with statistical certainty reach a critical mass, that allows him to "naturally" corner a market. Once that has happened, in a deregulated world, little can be done to stop them.

This is obviously nonsense.

In a deregulated world and a truly free market, what's to prevent an upstart from entering the market and offering a competing good or service? If the larger, established business becomes abusive and corrupt, customers can move their business to other, smaller competitors.

Only through government interference (i.e., a non-free market) can the larger competitor create barriers to entry and "corner the market".

But let's forget about IP, but keep our eye on Intel. They will, within a decade or so, have a monopoly on fabrication processes, judging by the current development. Other industries are similar - if at one point you gain critical capital, you can out-optimize the competition. Amazon for example has so much turn-over that they can run ridiculously thin margins. They are large enough that they can in theory tank a loss for a while. while smaller retailers go bankrupt, then raise their prices when nobody's left.

Of course, neither Intel nor Amazon accomplished any of this in a truly free market.

Creating monopolies is relatively easy. It's the capitalist's goal. It's happened time and time again, in history, and most big corporations have exploited their clout to extinguish smaller competitors. Saying that this was state-sponsored is mostly preposterous.

Of course it was state-sponsored. It can't be any other way. Capitalists, or more specifically, monopoly capitalists, figured out long ago that the best way to squash their competition was through control of government. With government control, you don't have to out-compete your competitors with better goods, services, and prices, you simply have to crush them with artificial controls (regulations, taxes, licensing, etc...). This is the entire purpose of government regulations in our current economic system - control.

This is common sense.

Also, I find it strange, that Smoblikat can imagine a liberalist utopia, but not a communist one. One is built on the idea of all society working for a common goal, the other is built on the worst elements of society working for the good of society, by working for their own good. Either utopia (I wouldn't call Star Trek communism any more shitty, than Atlas Shrugged liberalism, to pick two examples) is just an utopia: A perfect world, base don unattainable assumptions.

What are you babbling about with this "liberalist utopia" stuff? What kind of straw man nonsense is this?

None of your arguments are logical or coherent.

 

[Spungo]

Human beings innovated and developed technology long before government patents were introduced.

I wonder why they even bothered?

Compare innovations made in the US vs USSR during the same time period. Being allowed to patent things and get super rich is why we saw great improvements during that time.The soviets were stuck in the stone age and they ended up stealing up technology from everyone else. People still like to create things but that possibility of making a billion dollars tends to motivate people a bit more.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Compare innovations made in the US vs USSR during the same time period.

LOL, wut? You think the Soviet Union was an economic backwater because people there couldn't patent stuff? You mean it had nothing to do with the tyrannical Soviet government and its obsessive control of all social and economic life in the Soviet Union?

Being allowed to patent things and get super rich is why we saw great improvements during that time.

I see no reason to believe that.

People got wealthy and developed technology and other advancements long before the creation of the patent system.

The soviets were stuck in the stone age and they ended up stealing up technology from everyone else. People still like to create things but that possibility of making a billion dollars tends to motivate people a bit more.

And people can only make a billion dollars if the government patent system is in place? Is that your argument?

 

[_Rick_]

This is obviously nonsense.

In a deregulated world and a truly free market, what's to prevent an upstart from entering the market and offering a competing good or service? If the larger, established business becomes abusive and corrupt, customers can move their business to other, smaller competitors.

If they can't compete, because they're outpriced, don't get access to required resources, then it's game over. As a monopoly, usually your capital and market position allows you to secure your position.

Only through government interference (i.e., a non-free market) can the larger competitor create barriers to entry and "corner the market".

Barriers are also created by monopolizing resources, such as trade partners, natural resources, infrastructure. All of these can be acquired, once sufficient market dominance is achieved, or deals between several "free actors" have been made, to assure that they will not be competed with and mutually benefit.

Of course, neither Intel nor Amazon accomplished any of this in a truly free market.

Of course it was state-sponsored. It can't be any other way. Capitalists, or more specifically, monopoly capitalists, figured out long ago that the best way to squash their competition was through control of government. With government control, you don't have to out-compete your competitors with better goods, services, and prices, you simply have to crush them with artificial controls (regulations, taxes, licensing, etc...). This is the entire purpose of government regulations in our current economic system - control.

This is common sense.

What are you babbling about with this "liberalist utopia" stuff? What kind of straw man nonsense is this?

None of your arguments are logical or coherent.

Sorry, if my arguments were not formulated in such a way that you could understand them. As for the liberalist utopia, that's what libertarians are striving for, and imagining, when they think of the perfect liberalist state. Much like communism is an utopical idea, that didn't work out in the real world, I see many similarities with liberalist/libertarian ideas. No straw man involved, it is simply a term used to describe imaginary perfect societies, that can not be reasonably expected to be achieved, or require magic. I don't want to discuss utopias though.

But please do elaborate some more, on how, given the restrictions I outlined further up, it were impossible for monopolies to persist in a free market? It would be beneficial, after all, for a leading enterprise, to consume smaller ones. And it would be more beneficial, to be able to agree on prices.

Look at the oil market. OPEC has the market cornered, and is setting the price. No "world government" is there to protect or create their monopoly. It's simply a matter of having the resources. What stops them, from using the money they make now, to corner the Uranium/Gas market next, and then buy up regenerative energies? If you can illustrate, where government enabled that monopoly, or would enable future monopolies at that scale, please go ahead.

I'd go even further, and say that due to globalization, governments are becoming more and more impotent to do anything. While there are still key markets, where governments have more power over large conglomerates, it would take a world-government to govern many if the largest corporations in any meaningful manner. As far as I know there is very little government on that scale.

One last word regarding the government creating monopolies. A government takes taxes from market actors. In return, it does, in fact, help these market actors out. On the other hand, if these taxes were not paid, that capital would be used directly to make sure that competition would be minimized. A competition is something that is won. During the competition there are some mild gains for society (besides the resources wasted in competing), but once the competition is over, it takes a magnificent opportunity for someone to re-enter a "conquered" market.

 

[Juror No. 8]

If they can't compete, because they're outpriced, don't get access to required resources, then it's game over. As a monopoly, usually your capital and market position allows you to secure your position.

What's to prevent the competition from lowering their prices, offering better service, innovating a better product, and devising a better marketing campaign? Who's going to prevent access to resources?

If a natural monopoly develops, and it offers such great prices, services, and products that nobody even wants to compete with it, then what's the problem?

Barriers are also created by monopolizing resources, such as trade partners, natural resources, infrastructure. All of these can be acquired, once sufficient market dominance is achieved, or deals between several "free actors" have been made, to assure that they will not be competed with and mutually benefit.

What's to prevent competitors from finding other trade partners, new sources of natural resources, and using other infrastructure?

Sorry, if my arguments were not formulated in such a way that you could understand them. As for the liberalist utopia, that's what libertarians are striving for, and imagining, when they think of the perfect liberalist state. Much like communism is an utopical idea, that didn't work out in the real world, I see many similarities with liberalist/libertarian ideas. No straw man involved, it is simply a term used to describe imaginary perfect societies, that can not be reasonably expected to be achieved, or require magic. I don't want to discuss utopias though.

Of course this is a straw man. I've discussed these issues with countless anarchists and libertarians, and I've never once heard them refer to the kind of society they envision as being "perfect" or a "utopia". That's your spin, not theirs.

But please do elaborate some more, on how, given the restrictions I outlined further up, it were impossible for monopolies to persist in a free market? It would be beneficial, after all, for a leading enterprise, to consume smaller ones. And it would be more beneficial, to be able to agree on prices.

I believe I already have. Monopolies tend to become abusive, corrupt, and inefficient. This creates a void in the marketplace where competitors can step in and compete for customers.

If a monopoly hypothetically doesn't become abusive, corrupt, and inefficient, and gives its customers everything they could ever want, then there's no problem.

Look at the oil market. OPEC has the market cornered, and is setting the price. No "world government" is there to protect or create their monopoly. It's simply a matter of having the resources. What stops them, from using the money they make now, to corner the Uranium/Gas market next, and then buy up regenerative energies? If you can illustrate, where government enabled that monopoly, or would enable future monopolies at that scale, please go ahead.

Surely you realize OPEC is a product of government, right? It was created by governments, not private companies. Note the name. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

I'd go even further, and say that due to globalization, governments are becoming more and more impotent to do anything. While there are still key markets, where governments have more power over large conglomerates, it would take a world-government to govern many if the largest corporations in any meaningful manner. As far as I know there is very little government on that scale.

Governments are seemingly becoming impotent because governments are beholden to corporations. This is true throughout most of the advanced world. Politicians in the United States, for instance, can't reach a high level office in Washington without corporate money to finance their political campaigns and favorable coverage in the corporate media. It's your classic master-servant relationship. The hand that gives (the corporations) is above the hand that takes (the politicians). We're at a situation now where the politicians have essentially become middle managers for the banks and corporations who put them in office.

Any world government that is created in the future will be created by those same banks and corporations who now control national governments.

One last word regarding the government creating monopolies. A government takes taxes from market actors. In return, it does, in fact, help these market actors out.

I disagree on a fundamental level. Government, by its very nature, is a monopoly fraught with waste and inefficiency. Government is incapable of being beneficial, because it can't help but waste money. At its worst, government becomes the equivalent of a giant, legal Mafia extortion racket far more dangerous than any corporation can dream of.

On the other hand, if these taxes were not paid, that capital would be used directly to make sure that competition would be minimized. A competition is something that is won. During the competition there are some mild gains for society (besides the resources wasted in competing), but once the competition is over, it takes a magnificent opportunity for someone to re-enter a "conquered" market.

I'm not following. Can you explain? How is a market actor going to spend capital to minimize competition, specifically? Do you mean by creating better goods and services, or something else?

 

[Abraxas]

What's to prevent the competition from lowering their prices, offering better service, innovating a better product, and devising a better marketing campaign? Who's going to prevent access to resources?

Me. Let's say hypothetically I own a manufacturing company and I reach a point where I have effectively stamped out most competitors and have an enormous level of market influence. To cement my position, I go out and purchase up a number of the producers of the rare materials needed to manufacture my product and agree to pay a little bit more for materials from the rest of producers in exchange for a contract of exclusivity with me in my market sector, which, if breached, results in penalties that would cost the producer much more than they could make. Suppose this product is necessary to a huge number of market sectors, such as microchips, and so I can charge more or less what I want and companies that want to continue to exist cannot not buy from me.

How do you propose the free market deal with me since the materials needed to compete are only available at hugely inflated prices if at all when you are not me?

 

[Spungo]

How do you propose the free market deal with me since the materials needed to compete are only available at hugely inflated prices if at all when you are not me?

Yeah but the government is still the cause of monopolies in your example because the government is the one enforcing the validity of contracts. What we need is no contracts and no patent laws. All laws do is slow down the Free Market. Companies in India should immediately start making generic versions of drugs after I've spent 10 years of research and billions of dollars to invent it. All deals for exclusivity should be invalid. Bulk discounts should be illegal but not enforced because enforcing the law against bulk discounts would again be too much government involvement.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Me. Let's say hypothetically I own a manufacturing company and I reach a point where I have effectively stamped out most competitors and have an enormous level of market influence. To cement my position, I go out and purchase up a number of the producers of the rare materials needed to manufacture my product and agree to pay a little bit more for materials from the rest of producers in exchange for a contract of exclusivity with me in my market sector, which, if breached, results in penalties that would cost the producer much more than they could make. Suppose this product is necessary to a huge number of market sectors, such as microchips, and so I can charge more or less what I want and companies that want to continue to exist cannot not buy from me.

How do you propose the free market deal with me since the materials needed to compete are only available at hugely inflated prices if at all when you are not me?

What's to prevent a competitor from developing an alternative product based on a different, more abundant resource? Why would you expect all the other market actors to stand around watching while one firm puts a stranglehold on the rest of them? Just because?

It seems like every argument against a free market revolves around some kind of "what if?" hypothetical based on an almost implausible set of factors. These people will always ask the question, "what if super corporation X becomes corrupt and tyrannical", but never seem interested in asking the same question phrased as, "what if super government X becomes corrupt and tyrannical".

It's always corporations, but never government.

 

[Abraxas]

What's to prevent a competitor from developing an alternative product based on a different, more abundant resource?

Chemistry? Physics?

Why would you expect all the other market actors to stand around watching while one firm puts a stranglehold on the rest of them? Just because?

Which market actors?

It seems like every argument against a free market revolves around some kind of "what if?" hypothetical based on an almost implausible set of factors. These people will always ask the question, "what if super corporation X becomes corrupt and tyrannical", but never seem interested in asking the same question phrased as, "what if super government X becomes corrupt and tyrannical".

It's always corporations, but never government.

The problem is it has happened before, there have been monopolies that have occurred due to market conditions that were only broken through government intervention (AT&T) or situations where monopolies would have emerged but for anti-trust legislation (Microsoft).

This is what makes me dismiss libertarians out of hand, they simply start from the standpoint that all problems with economies stem from government intervention, even those demonstrably not, and that everything will just work itself out with an acceptable human cost if we just let companies do whatever they want. Governments have a built in control mechanism, voters. I know you don't put much stock in democracy, but if enough people vote against the system, the system changes. There is always the possibility of a government becoming tyrannical but if democratic history shows us anything, companies almost certainly will if left unchecked and the only check against money is democracy.

Yeah but the government is still the cause of monopolies in your example because the government is the one enforcing the validity of contracts. What we need is no contracts and no patent laws. All laws do is slow down the Free Market. Companies in India should immediately start making generic versions of drugs after I've spent 10 years of research and billions of dollars to invent it. All deals for exclusivity should be invalid. Bulk discounts should be illegal but not enforced because enforcing the law against bulk discounts would again be too much government involvement.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Yeah but the government is still the cause of monopolies in your example because the government is the one enforcing the validity of contracts. What we need is no contracts and no patent laws. All laws do is slow down the Free Market. Companies in India should immediately start making generic versions of drugs after I've spent 10 years of research and billions of dollars to invent it. All deals for exclusivity should be invalid. Bulk discounts should be illegal but not enforced because enforcing the law against bulk discounts would again be too much government involvement.

I see you rely on distortion and sarcasm in order to try sound convincing with your counter arguments. However I would say to you that Libertarianism supports private property rights and enforcement of private contracts but not ad infinitum control or protection of copyrights/IP which inherently tilts, and distorts the framework and playing field of the free market system in favor of monopolies who as you admitted end up protected by government's own often preferential enforcement of these IP/copyright laws in many cases.

- E.g. Disney's sickening renewal of their IP protection award to them by the US Congress but not to other businesses who I guess are not deemed "special" enough (i.e. do not have the ability to send an army of lobbyists to D.C.).

Without such distortions in place (or limiting of such distortions) this would force that original firm in your hypothetical scenario to continue the process of pharmaceutical development because they cannot and should not totally rely on the continued infinite monopoly on this drug via IP laws (or US government pharmaceutical subsidies to 3rd world nations at US consumer/patitent expense) and their manipulation (via the political process) of this IP protection.

As one can very easily argue that such a system comes at the expense of consumers (US patients who end up paying a high premium price wise for this drug in the long term) and other firms who could very well create new breakthroughs based on this drug, further enhance this drug to work better and with less side-effects and most importantly drive prices down for prescription drugs worldwide.

- E.g. The pc market and consumers have benefited greatly when that market has embraced open industry standards vs closed proprietary standards protected via layers of IP. One would have to shudder at the thought of a computer desktop world dominated by the likes Apple and their army of lawyers, lobbyists, etc enforcing their IP on hardware. Imagine of how many breakthroughs would have been held back or would be price prohibitive if Apple had domination of the marketplace rather than the (relatively speaking) open standard PC industry. Hell it was/is bad enough that the OS market ended up being dominated by Microsoft for as long as it did in the commercial retail OS space.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Chemistry? Physics?

How does chemistry and physics prevent people from developing market alternatives?

Which market actors?

Those you alluded to earlier in your example.

The problem is it has happened before, there have been monopolies that have occurred due to market conditions that were only broken through government intervention (AT&T)...

Uh, AT&T's monopoly was originally government licensed and created. Didn't you know that?

...or situations where monopolies would have emerged but for anti-trust legislation (Microsoft).

Could've, would've, should've....

I suspect the case against Microsoft was politically motivated more so than out of fear of a totally non-existent Microsoft monopoly.

This is what makes me dismiss libertarians out of hand, they simply start from the standpoint that all problems with economies stem from government intervention, even those demonstrably not, and that everything will just work itself out with an acceptable human cost if we just let companies do whatever they want.

Whatever those issues are in a free market, government intervention only makes them worse, by an order of magnitude.

Governments have a built in control mechanism, voters.

Wait, you're kidding right? You think the voters control government? LOL, come on...

The only thing voters have a modicum of control over is which puppets will "lead" them and a few other small, mostly meaningless things.

I know you don't put much stock in democracy, but if enough people vote against the system, the system changes.

No it doesn't. Just look at the presidential election of 2008 for all the evidence you need. Obama campaigned on being the exact opposite of Bush and pledged to overturn pretty much all of Bush's unpopular decisions/policies. Remember? Hope and "change"? That's what the American people "voted" for.

Well, what happened? We basically got Bush's third term instead. Nothing - not one fucking thing - changed. Corporate welfare, bailouts, the phony war on terror, the war on drugs, murderous foreign drone attacks, domestic spying, NDAA, Patriot Act, expanding police state, warmongering, borrowing and spending, etc... Nothing of any substance changed at all. It was a seamless transition from one corporate puppet to another.

There is always the possibility of a government becoming tyrannical but if democratic history shows us anything, companies almost certainly will if left unchecked and the only check against money is democracy.

You're living in a fantasy world. There is no democracy, there's only the illusion of democracy. You're not allowed to vote for anything important. You're not allowed to vote for any real change. The corporate media controls the public's perception of every political candidate and policy. Even if you managed to get an honest politician who promises real change on the ballot, the corporate-owned media would see to it that the American people associate his name with Hitler. The whole fucking thing controlled, man. They've got it down to a science. They farm and exploit masses of human beings the same way a farmer does cows.

The corporate puppets of the ruling billionaire elites (Bush, Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, etc...) will always win, and no matter what party they represent, the policies will remain the same. They might allow you to vote on whether they charge you a 38 or 40 percent tax rate, but that's about it. The people are allowed to make no major decisions.

 

[Abraxas]

How does chemistry and physics prevent people from developing market alternatives?

Because sometimes to make a product that does something, you need a certain chemical or a certain chemical compound.

Those you alluded to earlier in your example.

The ones I alluded to earlier had already been put out of business. They can't do anything.

Uh, AT&T's monopoly was originally government licensed and created. Didn't you know that?

After the fact. The Kingsbury Commitment came about as a result of AT&T already having reached monopolistic proportions.

Could've, would've, should've....

Wow, that was nonsensical.

I suspect the case against Microsoft was politically motivated more so than out of fear of a totally non-existent Microsoft monopoly.

Yes, because an over 90% market share held by a single company is an indicator of a healthy and competitive market.

Whatever those issues are in a free market, government intervention only makes them worse, by an order of magnitude.

That which is asserted without evidence (and in the face of overwhelming evidence)...

Wait, you're kidding right? You think the voters control government? LOL, come on...

The only thing voters have a modicum of control over is which puppets will "lead" them and a few other small, mostly meaningless things.

Right, voters never change anything which is why the Whigs are still a dominant political party, just like they've always been.

No it doesn't. Just look at the presidential election of 2008 for all the evidence you need. Obama campaigned on being the exact opposite of Bush and pledged to overturn pretty much all of Bush's unpopular decisions/policies. Remember? Hope and "change"? That's what the American people "voted" for.

Well, what happened? We basically got Bush's third term instead. Nothing - not one fucking thing - changed. Corporate welfare, bailouts, the phony war on terror, the war on drugs, murderous foreign drone attacks, domestic spying, NDAA, Patriot Act, expanding police state, warmongering, borrowing and spending, etc... Nothing of any substance changed at all. It was a seamless transition from one corporate puppet to another.

First, the congress critters were overwhelmingly voted back in. That in and of itself pretty much kills the proposition on its face they were voting overwhelmingly for change. Second, one example of one politician living up to the hype does not in and of itself mean that competent people cannot be voted into office if the voters are careful in their selection. Third, the alternative is even worse, which is ceding control entirely to people whose sole mission is literally to get money out of your hands and into theirs by any means possible.

You're living in a fantasy world. There is no democracy, there's only the illusion of democracy. You're not allowed to vote for anything important. You're not allowed to vote for any real change. The corporate media controls the public's perception of every political candidate and policy. Even if you managed to get an honest politician who promises real change on the ballot, the corporate-owned media would see to it that the American people associate his name with Hitler. The whole fucking thing controlled, man. They've got it down to a science. They farm and exploit masses of human beings the same way a farmer does cows.

Fine, lets take everything you said as absolutely true for the sake of entertainment. Somehow, in spite of the government mind control rays you managed to cut through the static and find the truth, thus proving the truth is out there. If you can find it, others can find it. If others can find it and enough of them vote, they can put in another "Truther" and make the changes they seek.

The corporate puppets of the ruling billionaire elites (Bush, Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, etc...) will always win, and no matter what party they represent, the policies will remain the same. They might allow you to vote on whether they charge you a 38 or 40 percent tax rate, but that's about it. The people are allowed to make no major decisions.

I will actually more or less grant that, but only because we as a populace have largely chosen to remain uninformed and cede control to them. Were the people to choose to take the power back, they pretty easily could. Regardless, what little control they have there is lost in a free market where companies are given unlimited latitude on how to proceed in the accumulation of wealth.

 

[OverVolt]

Libertarians are generally rather stupid, and so are communists. So there ya go.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Because sometimes to make a product that does something, you need a certain chemical or a certain chemical compound.

And someone is going to somehow magically seize monopoly control over one or more critical chemicals in the world without anyone noticing or reacting?

The ones I alluded to earlier had already been put out of business. They can't do anything.

I'm still unclear on how is that going to realistically happen.

What you described would rely on an enormous number of market actors doing absolutely nothing and/or doing something that isn't in their own best interests.

After the fact. The Kingsbury Commitment came about as a result of AT&T already having reached monopolistic proportions.

And how did government solve that problem? By formalizing AT&T's monopoly and giving it government sanction.

Yes, because an over 90% market share held by a single company is an indicator of a healthy and competitive market.

Was Microsoft's 90% market share in certain areas due to monopolistic practices, or because consumers simply preferred and bought their products instead of Microsoft's competitors?

That which is asserted without evidence (and in the face of overwhelming evidence)...

What overwhelming evidence? You haven't brought any to this thread that's stuck to the wall.

Right, voters never change anything which is why the Whigs are still a dominant political party, just like they've always been.

Sure, the voters can vote for new parties all they like, but they'll still get the same basic policies.

You can pick the puppets who will perform for you, but you can't change the performance.

First, the congress critters were overwhelmingly voted back in. That in and of itself pretty much kills the proposition on its face they were voting overwhelmingly for change.

Not really. They voted for change in the Executive branch and didn't get it.

The point still stands.

Second, one example of one politician living up to the hype does not in and of itself mean that competent people cannot be voted into office if the voters are careful in their selection.

If? "If" the voters are "careful in their selection"? Have you not figured out how this system works yet?

Look, the media tells people who to vote for by carefully framing both the issues and the politicians. Almost all the information about various issues, policies, and politicians is filtered through the corporate media. That's where people still get their news from. When someone wants to learn about a certain issue, they usually turn on the TV and see what the corporate news pundits say about it.

The people don't "select" the politicians. Hand-picked politicians (by the banks and corporations) are spoon-fed to the people, and the people pick the one who's marketed the best.

Third, the alternative is even worse, which is ceding control entirely to people whose sole mission is literally to get money out of your hands and into theirs by any means possible.

Yes, because ceding control to corrupt, lying, whorish politicians has worked so much better, right?

Fine, lets take everything you said as absolutely true for the sake of entertainment. Somehow, in spite of the government mind control rays you managed to cut through the static and find the truth, thus proving the truth is out there. If you can find it, others can find it. If others can find it and enough of them vote, they can put in another "Truther" and make the changes they seek.

You make it sound as if this is something easy to accomplish.

The overwhelming majority of the country is so hopelessly brainwashed/dumbed down, there's absolutely no way to bring them back. They're gone, and we're fucked.

I will actually more or less grant that, but only because we as a populace have largely chosen to remain uninformed and cede control to them. Were the people to choose to take the power back, they pretty easily could.

Yeah, and how is that going to work, short of a popular armed rebellion involving millions along with a sympathetic military? This government has spent the last 50 years preparing for practically any domestic uprising scenario you can conjure up.

Why do you think they are trying so hard to chip away at the Second Amendment?

Regardless, what little control they have there is lost in a free market where companies are given unlimited latitude on how to proceed in the accumulation of wealth.

Banks and corporations already have that, since they own and control the government. We have full regulatory capture in this country. The government works for them, not us.

The only thing having a government has accomplished is making the very people you fear the most ten times more powerful than they would otherwise be.