|
V. Illych L. posted:Sometimes, I feel like honest libertarians are one serious revelation away from turning into anarchists, frankly. It's just that this revelation never seems to come, and it troubles me a bit. Which kind of anarchist, though? Anarcho-capitalist or 'true' socialist anarchists?
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:I refuse to consider "anarcho"-capitalists as anarchists. I have too much respect for anarchism to lump it in with that sorry lot Which is precisely why I asked; I figured you probably meant true anarchists. However, this is not a thing I've heard of. Many libertarians jump to anarcho-capitalism but I don't think I know of any who made the jump to anarchism. What is the revelation, that private property and the state are essentially the same, so if you are against one you must be against the other?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
Not that I want to turn this into a discussion on the philosophical merits of anarcho-capitalism, but Woozy posted:...most importantly you need a judicial system to create the necessary legal fictions and enforce contracts to allow for corporations to begin with. is wrong, in my experience. No anarchocapitalists that I know, and few libertarians, support the nature of the LLC and certainly not the legal fictions that accompany it. Golbez fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jul 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
This stuff about the history of Germany and how it was a class struggle is absolutely fascinating.  I mean, it might seem obviously like that to you, but I went through a typical American education, the term "class struggle" never came up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:One thing to remember is that the "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" quote is that it doesn't come from one of his academic works, but rather the Communist Manifesto which is a statement of purpose for a political group, and it's the opening line of the body of the work. It's designed to be a grandiose statement that grabs the attention of those who read it, whether they agree or disagree. Remember the "Attention Getter" sentences your elementary school teacher told you to use? It's one of those, and probably the most famous one of all times. One I've always remembered is, "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
GreenCard78 posted:Really? I always hear this but I thought I had a typical American education and the term came up in multiple years. I don't remember ever being taught much about interwar Germany. Or maybe I have a lovely memory.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
Here's something this thread seems designed for: Please tell us about "margin." Just in the last few posts I see "marginalism", "marginal utility", "at the margin" and I have no clue what this means, in economic terms.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
baw posted:It's "best" to just completely ignore it. I agree. Unless this person was someone you knew outside of this thread, I would have said leave the moment he started calling you a monkey. There's nothing to be gained from this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
That doesn't look like a quality use of 42 hours. PS: You missed a name blank at the very bottom of the second-to-last image.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:What I've found most effective is getting them to understand that sovereign debt is not the same as personal debt. Everyone I know that freaks out over the debt is convinced that these two things are pretty much the same thing. Is this because of the whole nature of how that debt is actually bonds or what not?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
So just to be clear, that is saying that for every $1 the government spends on supplying food stamps, $1.73 is added to the economy? How did they arrive at this figure? And I don't understand how tax cuts figure into that equation, are they saying "for every $1 the Bush tax cuts lowered taxes, only 30 cents was added to the economy"?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Investments are not as stimulative as consumer spending. For every $100 Mitt spends, 100% of it may go to a Swiss brokerage account which then invests it in a Chinese mutual fund. Conversely, for every $100 a Poor Black Welfare Queen spends, %100 is spent in the local economy. ...in the local economy, on cheap goods made in China, and that's why it's more important to give the rich tax breaks, because the money they spend actually stays here. So says my Romney-voting mother. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:My dad sometimes drops welfare queen stories and such. This is getting to the level of anti-gay activists who turn out to be deeply in the closet. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Ask him how he intends to test his water supply for heavy metals (lets hope that sparks a rant about fluoridation) He doesn't now, he trusts that the provider does it. And he would clearly trust a private provider more than a government one!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:I like how here the Gubment is causing folks in the private sector to be crooked assholes. If the government would just stop making everyone be a crook then they won't! The mindset is very much, everything the market does is in spite of the state, and everything good happens solely because of the market. If something bad happens, it's because the state interfered, or created an atmosphere where it was possible through claiming authority then not exercising it [the "lets them" argument]. If something good happens, it's because the market was working around the state. The state is not merely by default bad; it is bad, as a concept. There's both moral and pragmatic reasons for this: moral in the sense of, don't take my property, if I want your services I (or someone else) will willingly pay for them; and pragmatic, as in, the market is a superior method for distributing resources, all states do is interfere with that. In addition, in my own philosophy, "state" referred to anyone who would oppress you. A thief was a de facto state, for he was confiscating your property without compensation or permission. And the only thing that separated the government from a mafia was popular acceptance by the sheep. I used to believe all this. Pretty much the moment I realized that the state CAN manage something better and at a lower cost (health care), the entire house of cards started falling. It took a year for the thoughts to reach they way out of my subconscious to my conscious, but when they did there was nowhere to go but admit the truth. The state is a tool, like unions and markets, and when done properly (and it rarely has been done truly properly) it is a great tool. It is the voice of the many, just as the mechanisms of a proper state protect the few from the many. Libertarians want the latter while abandoning the former, but you cannot have it both ways, not yet. I sometimes feel like I've woken up from deep cover and am sharing my secrets, such as they are. At the very least I know the rhetoric and am trying to learn how to combat it. the2ndgenesis posted:A lot of hardcore Austrian Schooler libertarians are pretty much categorically incapable of accepting the fact that businesses sometimes act like dicks for reasons other than -=~STATE INTERVENTION~=-. Just ask one about monopolies sometime. "An abusive monopoly can only exist with state interference. Any market monopoly will either be short-lived or maintain very low prices as to keep out competition, thus benefiting the consumer. The free market does not bear abusive monopolies. For example, Standard Oil! They had to keep their prices dirt cheap, because if they raised them, competitors started coming out of the woodwork. And as a counterexample, AT&T's monopoly was strongly supported by the state." Golbez fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Sep 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:Meanwhile, back in reality, someone explains to this guy what the word "Monopoly" implies. And also maybe how "underpricing" isn't a method of staying competitive. They will admit it was a monopoly, but not an abusive monopoly. It wasn't instituting monopoly pricing, customers were getting their oil for cheap, so they were benefiting from the arrangement. A government monopoly is by definition abusive, since it requires the force of the state to maintain. The USPS and AT&T counted, whereas Microsoft did not (well, depends on how you view copyright, but that's an entirely different discussion). But if you become the only vendor in a particular market space on your own merits, well, that's just how good you are! What's the point of market power if you can't wield it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
King Dopplepopolos posted:Golbez, you make libertarianism, or at least Austrian libertarianism, sound ideologically rigid to the point of being almost cultish. Sadly, given my experience with libertarians, I can't really disagree with you. I considered myself anarchocapitalist for ten years, and yes, it is rigid because it is so simple, in a good way - answers are incredibly easy to come up with for every problem because the rules for solving them are very simple.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
Cahal posted:This is still a losing battle because you are giving too much ground with the 'taxes are the price we pay for society.' He can still say it isn't voluntary, coercive blah blah blah. "You use roads, don't you? Taxes are how you pay for them." "But I don't agree with that. I would gladly pay for roads if that was what was needed, but I don't want to be forced." OR "Goods you buy get sent to the store by those roads, so why shouldn't you pay for them?" "Then the cost of the road is paid by those who use it [the store, or their shipping company], and the cost passed on to the consumer. There's no reason I have to pay for their roads directly." Aeolius posted:Anyway, it is literally impossible for the whole world to adopt Hong Kong's model; the only way it's able to achieve its level of prosperity is through a sort of highly specialized parasitism wherein it attaches itself to larger, more varied and productive economies and diverts large, fast capital flows. A Hong Kong or a Singapore couldn't exist without a U.S., an India, or a China from which to leech rents and commercial/financial capital. There's also the fundamental issue of Hong Kong and Singapore being major seaports. Ports are always going to have far more money and goods flowing through them, affording them certain leeway in some things. Do you see any major inland city-states? If Phoenix declared independence and adopted every law of Hong Kong or Singapore, it would collapse because it simply doesn't have the money flow. Golbez fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Sep 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
The way I would justify property is, if I mix my labor with land, I own that land, or at least the improvements to it, which are of course impossible to remove from the land. Note that removing sticks and stones and mowing the grass and putting up a fence would count as improvement, if only to sell to a developer. I could hire security (police) to defend it from those who do not respect my claim. Who decides what level of improvement leads to ownership? The community. Because obviously it can't be unilateral, otherwise everyone would have equal claim on all land because they would make up their own rules. And therein you start to see where it falls apart. Not the market; the community. Because if you leave it to the market, you still run in to situations where people decide their own rules; with enough money, the market is irrelevant to you. And that's where anarchocapitalism begins to become a contradiction. Property rights are fundamentally decided by the people rather than the individual. Maybe the reason I can look back on it now is that I spent so much time justifying and rationalizing it then, and now I can see the holes in the justifications.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:A libertarian who believes that every instance of corporate corruption and inflicted human misery is a byproduct of the state enabling them to project those desires with destructive privilege is a lost cause right? I want to write this discussion off and never think about it again, because this person has a diamond hardon for the deregulated free market. I may have fallen under "lost cause" in this case five years ago, but look at me now. Sometimes it just takes a personal hit to knock them into sense. However, I should say, it wasn't constant debate that did it. It was a slow, mostly internal, party unconscious process. Don't get discouraged unless they're a douche about it; as long as they're discussing honestly, reciprocate. If they stop discussing honestly, then the response is to not discuss, rather than dip into it. And also call them on their dishonest bullshit. I think that was also one reason I came out the other side: I always thought of myself as "the libertarian who isn't an rear end in a top hat." Because I've known plenty of rear end in a top hat libertarians, both online and IRL, who have such an air of smug superiority with their positions that it annoyed even me. I am a unique snowflake.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Maybe you already said it, in which case I missed it, but what changed you? Was there an epiphany of some kind, or a slow but steady stream of logic to refute your held world views? I wrote about it a bit in my thread, but it was a combination of two things. First was being denied health insurance at one point, due to my pre-existing conditions (which are so minor as to be laughable); I realized that if one company could flat-out deny me, then potentially all companies could flat-out deny me, and I didn't like the idea of my future vitality being decided by these rich people with zero input from me. But that kind of festered in my brain for a couple of years, working its way through unconsciously. It became conscious when I learned that, in objective measures using hard data, state-run or managed health care systems provide better care for all at a lower cost. The combination of what I'd been subconsciously processing for a couple of years with irrefutable data made me turn around and look at it all. Then I looked at the fundamental statement of libertarianism, that they want no coercion in the system, and realized, but in the relationship between property/capital owner and worker, there is a fundamental and constant level of coercion built into the system, and libertarians by definition want to reinforce and strengthen that. So it was the health care stuff that made me realize the free market wasn't the single solution for everything, and that was the wedge that allowed me the perspective to see the contradictions in the philosophy itself. To those around me, it seemed like a rather rapid change, happening over the space of two weeks, but I think it had been slowly festering for over a year. The funny thing is, I was not one to switch easily. I spent two years on an anarcho-socialist form trying to extol the virtues of capitalism and they didn't sway me at all. If I went back I'd probably fit right in now. The point: True change comes from within, but objective data helps.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
gaan kak posted:Here's a quote from the person to show you the kind of nonsense I'm dealing with. Censoring is left as-is. This person appears to not be your friend, and this doesn't appear to be taking place on a moderated forum like SA. My suggestion in this case is walk away, this kind of person in an unmoderated environment isn't worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:No since the only people who disagree with it substantially are crazy wackaloons. There's no new information possible to learn about it, we know what happened, how it happened, and why it happened. We knew that stuff by September 18th, 2001. A friend of mine says the fact that many engineers putting their careers on the line to challenge the "official story" means that maybe they're right, since why would they risk their career over nothing that involves them? Referring to ae911Truth. What's a good way to counter that reasoning?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:And if it were built a different way, it would have posed a hazard should you have managed to knock it over onto lower Manhattan. And just so people don't think "pfft, that's just Michael Bay talk", the story about what was then the Citicorp Center is very interesting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center#Engineering_crisis_of_1978 but the short version is: An engineering student determined that they had Done It Wrong, and due to its unique architecture, the tower was at risk of toppling in high winds. They worked hard to get it fixed in secret, but just in case, worked with the Red Cross to formulate an evacuation plan for Midtown Manhattan, because if it toppled (and a hurricane was heading towards New York at one point), they were concerned that it would create a domino effect. Some sources I find say it could have destroyed 156 city blocks, causing potentially over a hundred thousand casualties, but sadly I can't reliably source the numbers above, and I don't have access to the original New Yorker article.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
The closest thing I can say on that is about how, during the early 90s when Washington D.C. was the murder capital of the country, all handguns were banned in the district. Of course that didn't stop anyone from bringing one in from Maryland or Virginia, but the fact was that handguns were completely 100% banned in D.C., as I recall. Fat lot of good it did.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Friend, I know, but what is is not what can or should be, IMHO!! So are you saying there *should* be checkpoints, or are you just responding to the fallacy of "it never was, so it never will be"? Because if it's the former, then no sir, I don't like it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:That's pretty much the same thing though: the problem with being distanced from the human costs of warfare isn't that it is dishonorable, it's that it makes it easier and therefore more likely to conduct war without considering the consequences. Kind of how tasers make cops more comfortable in using force much more readily than they would without tasers, just because it's less lethal. To make up numbers, let's say with just a gun on hand, a cop might be 5% likely to use the gun and 95% likely to use less lethal methods like tackling or words. With a taser and a gun on hand, the cop is still 5% likely to use the gun, but is now 50% likely to use the taser. Having the less-lethal weapon has perhaps decreased deaths, but it has still increased use of weaponry. So, having the less-lethal (to pilots) weapon has decreased pilot deaths but has increased use of weapons in general.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
Sounds like, on a per capita basis, we should be complaining more about Japan than China. Of course, no politician would do that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:We used to bitch about Japan owning all our debt in the same way, actually. True. I suppose things have changed in 20 years. Or, we just found a new Eastern boogeyman to focus on.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:What are these vast gun control schemes? I don't think that Obama has done anything whatsoever related to gun control legislation. Correct, but they're afraid that he WILL when he wins a second term. This is based on absolutely nothing but irrational fear of the "left."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Also share the general reasons how it's bullshit, please.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:If batteries suddenly go from $6 a pack to $20 a pack you wind up with two results: people who can still afford the cost pay it anyway, and people who can't go without. There are ten batteries. They cost $6 a pack. If they stay at $6 a pack, then they sell to the first people who show up who can afford that. Only ten people get batteries; the shopowner gets $60. If they jump to $20 a pack, they sell the first people who show up who can afford that, a smaller group than before. But they still sell to ten people; the shopowner gets $200. What is objectively right or wrong about either scenario? You're saying if they were $20, only a rich person could afford them; but if a rich person bought them up at $6, the poor still get the same zero amount of batteries. The capitalist argument would be that, since the store now has $200, it can restock with $200 worth of goods instead of $60, thus bringing prices down and more stock to a needy populace. Extend this across the entire retail sector of the affected region and the theory (I say it that way because I simply don't know if it's backed up by numbers or not) is that needed goods will flow to the region faster. What's more important: That a few people get batteries now, or that more people get batteries soon? Mo_Steel posted:As opposed to arbitrarily allocating them to whoever has the most money. I guess the poor can drink river water and scavenge batteries out of their remote controls though, gently caress those guys. This could also go into an interesting discussion on rationing vs price hikes, when is one better than the other? WoodrowSkillson posted:Gas stations won't stock more flashlights or whatever on the off chance the demand may spike. Buying a ton of disaster supplies and then having the disaster whiff could be a big problem for the vendor. They will just jack the price of their existing inventory through the roof since there will be well off customers that will buy the items. WoodrowSkillson posted:First come first serve is inefficient but it at least lets the poor get a shot at buying some supplies. Poor people are not the ones buying out everything in moments of panic, because they can't. Richer people will still panic and will still buy out the stores at the gouged prices. "The poor" is not a single mass. You're still picking ten poor people over the other thousand in line. What's to stop the person who bought it for $6 to then turn around and scalp them for $20? Unless gouging laws also apply to poor people with nothing left? Golbez fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
rscott posted:The line of reasoning that says "a businessman will keep more of general disaster related items on hand if he's allowed to gouge on pricing during disasters" seems rather specious to me. Yeah, that was a weak argument. The better argument has always been, if he can up prices during a disaster he'll be able to bring in more goods, just before and just after said disaster. If he sells all his product for x amount, then he can only bring in the same amount of product he had before; if he sells it for 2x, then he can bring in twice as much, and having 20 batteries makes everyone in the disaster area better off than only having 10 batteries, right? This is of course assuming he puts it back into inventory rather than pocketing it like a 1920s movie villain, but one assumes a store is in the business of making more money rather than making a ton and then running away. Install Gentoo posted:We let the retailers jack up prices by 10% legally, and then they put signs up saying "two packs of batteries per customer" or something like that. Works perfectly fine? So the best method is a middle ground between price increases and rationing, rather than going whole hog into either? But what if one person wants to ration to 1 pack per customer and charge less, but the other wants to experiment and go 2 packs but charge more, etc etc? Give a little room for the market to figure out what the best method is? As an aside, having two people with a cat avatar arguing against each other is getting confusing. Edit: There's also a major issue that isn't being presented here: Apart from Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, we have never really seen a society-crushing disaster in this country, not anytime recently at least. Yes, price controls and rationing create black markets... for about three days. Then the lights will come back on, the water will be drained, and New Yorkers will start to go back to normal. So concern for a black market shouldn't be a major thing; apart from needing water and medicine, people will be pretty much okay, and those are something you can get from the national guard and red cross rather than having to go to your local Duane Reade. Golbez fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Nov 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
There are many billboards here in Cedar Rapids bought by the "Linn [County] Conservative Union", blaming Obama for gas going up 2 dollars during his term (despite the fact that it was so low when he took office because that little economic collapse thing) and one billboard calling him a "socialist." My question is, are they actually this stupid, or do they simply think the voters are stupid? The former gives me comfort; the latter gives me hate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:They claim that "prebates" issued to people will make it progressive by giving poor people money upfront to pay for this tax on every single thing you can buy, but since it'd only come once per month it'd gently caress most people who aren't rich over severely. The ironic thing, the idea of the prebate is so close to having a guaranteed minimum income, but they would never dare suggest that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:So, this weekend the local bank my family and I use ran out of money and was seized by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and given to the FDIC. It made me a bit curious on the modern role of the FDIC. I know Libertarians and other rightists generally oppose the Federal Reserve, but do any parties/ideologies officially oppose the FDIC as being government interference in the free market? How does the FDIC work now that business and personal banking is so deeply intertwined? What protections does my money have beyond the FDIC/what would have happened to it if the FDIC wasn't insuring it? A strict anarchocapitalist view of the FDIC is that it encourages banks to be lax on things like security and lending, and of course it also assists the fractional reserve banking system, which they're against. They would be for private insurance, and in fact many would state that a bank without private deposit insurance would have no chance whatsoever in the market (and it would open up a market in deposit insurance; do I keep my money in this bank that offers $250,000 insurance, or this one that offers $500,000 insurance but has an extra few dollars built in to the account fees?), but not automatic, government-managed insurance.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
gaan kak posted:So I've presented the asteroid dilemma to a libertarian, and he argues that compulsion is not needed in the face of the crisis: people would obviously voluntarily co-operate rather than face extinction. My view was always, things like Cumbre Vieja falling into the ocean, or an asteroid, or really any large-scale but remote-possibility disaster scenario would be handled by a consortium of insurance interests. Because, when we're in a libertarian paradise, things like city streets and infrastructure would be handled by the local chamber of commerce, and things like defense and disaster relief would be handled by insurance companies. They could perhaps do the math and realize that spending $500 billion now is worth not having to pay out a trillion later. It ... does rely on certain assumptions about the nature of business, though. Human history, at least recent western history, shows businesses care only about the short term issues rather than the long term ones. The political (yes, in this case, these gigantic companies working together and with their customers would entail politics) and economic will is unlikely to be there like it can be with a state actor being involved. Now, sure, maybe when we're in the libertarian paradise they will look at it less from a profit motive (because we'll all be so rich, you see, it being a libertarian paradise) and more from a "let's improve the world" motive, but the problem with that is, it's not guaranteed. Yet the last thing any state wants to happen is die, and it will fight to the end to prevent that, regardless of how much it costs. States can act without regard for profit, be it current or future. Some things are worth doing without a profit/loss calculation. That's something a private business is very, very unlikely to do.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Who would actually be able to insure a bank should it fail besides other banks or the government? If, say, Chase were to fall, what private company would have the money to pay out to Chase's customers besides another large bank like Wells Fargo? A giant insurance company. I can't speak for others, but my vision of a libertarian future involved truly gigantic insurance companies handling most of what we rely on a state for today. Of course, since in this scenario any bank can print its own currency, it becomes less of an issue - if a bank collapsed, its currency is probably worthless, so it won't cost too terribly much to cover the deposits. But that assumes the banks haven't come together to create a standard currency (which could of course happen; it would be similar to credit cards).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:So why would you think that replacing a monolithic public institution with a monolithic private institution? If we're speaking about the FDIC, libertarians would simply prefer there be choice and competition in the market, rather than one-size-fits-all forced upon the banks and their customers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:Right, but I operate on the notion that monolithic/gigantic/etc doesn't really constitute choice either. But it's more a choice than having a government force it. And when it comes down to if it's one company instead of a state, the libertarian stance becomes about morals; a state didn't earn its market power, but a company did, making it still the better option.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 23:00
|
|