Pull the lever and get all lemons.
Posted on: August 16, 2007 - 5:53pm
Offline
Pull the lever and get all lemons.
I was a Green Party member, but have since registered Democrat so I can vote in their primaries. In 2008, I'm planning to vote for Kucinich in the primaries, and in the general I'll either vote Green or for whatever reptile scum actually punts for the Democrats. It looks like that will either be the lethally ambitious Mrs. Clinton, or the dashingly inept Obama. But who knows: I was planning to vote for squat firebrand Dean until they started amplifying the importance of his awkward "Byahhh!" bleating, and a stifling gray flog floated in, calling itself "John Kerry," to cock up the elections for us.
- Login to post comments
The imaginary figment is the notion that one provider will control everything and charge exhorbitant prices unless the State intervenes. Monopolies exist when the State obstructs competition from entering the field. So long as no barriers exist then no monopoly exists.
Companies can only eliminate competition if they produce something consumers want better and more efficiently than others, or if they enlist the State to obstruct competition from entering the market. There's nothing the State can do to facilitate competition except get out of the way.
If I create a video, I have exclusive right over whether that can be distributed or not. If I made a website about freethought and put Sapient's radio shows on it and charged people and did this without his permission, he'd have every right to use the law to get me to remove those shows, and he'd be able to sue me for whatever money I made. In essense I "Stole" his intellectual property. Without some kind of law, IP means nothing. Not only would people have their ideas, songs, video, etc stolen regularly. Large corporations could pretty much kill public domain rules also (something disney has been trying really hard to do, every time their IP comes up for public domain, they've successfully lobbied to get the public domain time increased.)
My solution is rhetorical? You mean the one about getting government out of the way? Compare innovation and cost redution in the computer industry, which is probably the least regulated, with innovation and cost reduction in health-care, which is probably the most regulated.
BTW, I pay income and property tax, tax on my phone and utility bills, and sales tax. Inflation is also a form of taxation. I pay plenty of tax and it's a rip-off.
No you don't. You have the exclusive right over the medium you put it on. You can have exclusive right over objects, because only one person can have their way with an object. You can't have exclusive right over ideas, because anyone can have their way with an idea. There is no conflict of ownership in ideas just for this reason. Where there can be no conflict of ownership, there can be no theft.
Not right. Privilege. Don't conflate the two.
No, you didn't steal anything. You deprived him of nothing whatsoever.
"Intellectual property" is a contradiction in terms.
You can't have stolen what isn't yours.
There'd be no "large corporations" nor a state to lobby.
So your basis of argumentation is to completely destroy society for one that you imagine would work. Not a very convincing selling tactic. If you were a car salesman and told me to get rid of my car in favor of one that you have hiding behind a curtain which nobody has seen or test driven I think I'd stick with my reliable car that I know works.
So our government had nothing to do with the financing of the research of the internet. Our government had nothing to do with the development of the universities. Our government had nothing to do with the entire American education system. Nor did our government have anything to do with the research of the space program to develop our communication system. Our government had nothing to do with telecommunication standardization. Our government had nothing to do with the telecommunication infrastructure. Our government passed no laws preventing the monopolization of the telecommunicating lines.
Quite amazing how a person's argument is when they cut out so much information.
Yes, you repeat that but when did the country set up a tobacco monopoly or an oil monopoly? You completely dodged the question. The two examples I gave were of companies merging to create a larger marketshare, they were not created by the government. If all you are going to do is repeat your libertarian mantra then perhaps you could direct me to someone who can answer the question.
And the answer to your second mantra repetition, Sherman Antitrust Act. Perhaps you should pick up more history books rather than "Capitalism for Dummies" books.
I don't want to completely destroy society. Just the state. And it's well-known that the government is inefficient, incompetent, expensive, lying, secretive, generally ineffectual, motivated to give up everything else just for politics and public image, and has no real reguard for society except in rhetoric. The state operates largely behind a veil.
If I was a car salesman, I would be offering you an untested vehicle that operates from well-known and modern mechanical principles, with fuel injection and air conditioning and a BD player, a design that's easy to modify with any aftermarket parts, exterior, interior, under the hood, everywhere, and for this you would be giving up a steam-powered car that still has "road locomotive" painted on the side, which has to be sent off to the manufacturer to be refueled, and then only if they approve it by majority vote if it even gets out of committee, all of which is done behind closed doors, you're charged for the refueling according to how much money you make and irrelevant of how much fuel you use or whether they choose to load it up with coal again or not, and you're not allowed to buy coal from anybody else or refuel it yourself otherwise they'll intentionally break your car by remote control.
Sure, your car gets you from A to B, in spite of being an inefficient polluting slow piece of shit with a few wheels stuck onto it. And you know it works. But you'd be fooling yourself to think you're better off with that.
And the price tag is zero. I'm fucking giving this car away. The only problem you have is your old car manufacturer still wanting you to pay them.
If that analogy is going to fit then present me with the society that you speak of? You failed to do so in the last post so your analogy fails. So far you don't have a car except for what you are dreaming of. I'm not putting a down payment on your imagination then walking home.
And also, according to you analogy those who build the car aren't compensated for their labor. I don't think I'll ever buy a car made from slave labor. I think you need to rethink how you try to use the analogy but that belies the point that your entire concept of society is based upon wishful thinking.
It was part of the analogy that I wasn't showing you the car. If we can change the analogy on the fly then let's do that, but let's not then say that the analogy fails too, since it can just be changed anyways.
You don't have to put a down payment on it because it's free.
This is not an analogous point between the two, just like you can't drive anarchism down the interstate. Analogies have limits. That's why they're analogies.
Let's talk about "wishful thinking."
As you appear to believe the state to be just, moral, benevolent, effective, responsive, and possibly efficient and competent as leaders of a region, your entire concept of society is based upon wishful thinking.
As you appear to trust bureaucrats to know better than anybody else, your entire concept of society is based upon wishful thinking.
As you appear to believe that one group of people which has given to itself the name "Government" is magically imbued with powers no mere mortal in the private sector is able to wield, your entire concept of society is based upon wishful thinking.
As you appear to believe you have the right to force other people to live under the same masters as have enslaved you, and that indeed, this is what binds us together as a society, your entire concept of society is based upon wishful thinking.
As it appears to me, you're in no place to be saying my entire concept of society is based upon wishful thinking.
Nice, you've resorted to appealing to strawmen. I feel like I'm debating a creationist. Well, in a sense I'm dealing with someone with religion where I must have faith in the utopian vision of a future society that will be perfect if we all just think good thoughts. I'll come back when you have something to offer other than wishful thinking and bad analogies.
It was your bad analogy, in case you don't remember. And if you believe the state to be necessary or good, you're guilty of wishful thinking. Also, strawman + ad hom in that one.
Oh really? Then you can point to a real world example of your ideology in action and you can present to me where I said my view of government.
My ideology is "nobody has the right to initiate force". Notice we're communicating here and not using force? My ideology in action.
Your view of government can be easily inferred by your comments.
"They whine about government and how everyone is so reliant on it but gladly use everything society has provided" implies that you conflate society with the state, which implies that you believe the state is legitimate.
"So your basis of argumentation is to completely destroy society" also demonstrates the same conflation of society and the state. You seem unable to tell the difference.
"So our government...Our government...Our government...our government...Our government...Our government...Our government... " implies that you identify yourself with the government and the government with yourself. This is not something you would say if you believed the state to be illegitimate. Nobody who disbelieves the legitimacy of the state refers to it as "our government" but as "the government" or "the state". This difference puts you plainly opposed to me on this issue.
Belief in the legitimacy of government requires belief in it's justice in criminal matters, it's morality and ethical standards, it's benevolence toward the ruled, it's effectiveness at doing what is good, and it's responsiveness to the wishes of the people, in most cases (and always requiring at least one).
Most often the idea that the state is legitimate is backed up by the idea that the state is necessary (despite the nonsequitur) so I went on to attack that.
Belief that the government is necessary (a belief you hold that was betrayed by your antoganistic approach to asking me about it rather than the more generally open-minded alright-what-do-you-think of somebody with no opinion or an agreeing opinion, as well as implying the necessity or benefit of government actions as a self-evident default position) requires a belief that it is efficient and competent, or at least moreso than any of the alternatives. In order to be more efficient and competent than the alternatives, and to be purpetually so, would require that it is "magically imbued with powers no mere mortal in the private sector is able to wield". This is for it to remain purpetually more efficient and competent, if it were not purpetually more efficient and competent and those were the standards being used the idea of a monopoly state would have to be abandoned for a "cheapest, best, most competent bidder" system, which is incompatible with the state. When you give a small group of bureaucrats unlimited power and the exclusive right to enforce their decisions, you'd better damn well hope those bureaucrats know everything or damn-close-to-it because if not they'll be making lots of stupid decisions, and lots of stupid decisions are not necessary.
Now, if I've misconstrued your words and that isn't actually what you believe I do apologize and would appreciate you tell me what you do believe.
Our society is intertwined with the government so if you tear one down the other falls. We saw your anarchist ideology put into practice in New Orleans and it wasn't met with much success. So having a society where trash is picked up, water is purified, roads are reliable, fire departments put out fires, a Constitution which provides for limitations on the power of government and for freedoms of the people, and a government of the people where people can address their peers about there concerns is a preferred alternative.
Now let's look at your society where there is no organization apart from what people provide for themselves. Essentially might makes right. Those who can afford their own police force dictate the rules and with guns backing them up they can do what they want. Those under the thumb of the oppressors have no right to address their ruler because there is no government. I have the impression you think that this organization is absolutely impossible but I don't see that. In the labor struggles of the early 20th century and late 19th century the wealthy protected themselves with a private army to kill and oppress those who sought such things as an 8 hour work day. Entire communities were created that were under the rule of a company. People who are desperate will sacrifice freedom for security and will help form the backbone of a dictatorship. A society that provides for the needs of its people doesn't provide the breeding grounds for such desperation so people will fight to maintain their freedom.
It's no surprise that those countries which provide the least for it's people are the most oppressive while those who provide more have a more active democratic process. Anarchism doesn't provide for the people so it fosters corruption.
If you don't like the example of New Orleans that's fine because I haven't heard any alternative.
Government was responsible for the monopolization of telecommunications, just as it's responsible for many of the franchise monopolies we presently see in many jurisdictions. Yes, I've heard the argument about excessive duplication of distribution systems. It's fallacious and I can explain why if necessary.
Are some projects too big and costly for the market? I suggest reading about the Great Northern Railway. It was a privately funded transcontinental railroad built in the 19th century. It didn't go bankrupt, unlike Lincoln's railroad which funnelled millions from the public treasury into the pockets of politically connected industry.
The government education system is among the best examples of government failure. It's mired in politics, inefficient, and wasteful. Government schools often spend $10K or more annually per student while private schools spend a third or less of that and produce better results.
The government space program has been a colossal waste of money. No, it didn't give us velcro, nylon, teflon, Tang, or microwave ovens. Those are all myths.
Maybe I didn't understand what you were getting at. Were you trying to provide examples of companies which the government ostensibly protected consumers from? The price of oil had already declined by 80% prior to the passage of the Sherman Act. By the time the government broke up Standard Oil there were already over 100 other companies producing oil. I haven't read anything about American Tobacco. I've only studied Standard Oil. Most of what we know about it is simply propaganda perpetuated by government schools.
As a result of the Sherman Act, companies have had to spend billions of dollars defending themsleves from politically motivated lawsuits. None of this has benefitted consumers. It has only added to the cost of goods, hindered innovation, and lenghtened the time it takes to bring new products to market.
Thanks Rothbard, twice you avoided the issue of American Tobacco and Standard Oil so it appears you have nothing to offer other than what you parrot from your capitalist friends. BTW, you might want to learn that there is a reason for standardization and limits to certain markets. I'm certain you would propose a home to be wired up to five phone lines, five gas lines, five sewer lines and so on so you could have your competition. You would have no standards like electrical outlets, size of railroad tracks, etc. There's a reason your nonsense was rejected but clearly you haven't even thought about it.
When you come up with some arguments of your own and can actually address something I present rather than repeating your mantra perhaps I'll address you.
New Orleans was far from anarchism put into practice. It was chaos, yes, (chaos is absolutely not what I advocate) but the government was all over the place. FEMA had a virtual monopoly on where resources were to be directed. New Orleans was a demonstration of the failure of the state as monopoly provider. How did we have this problem if the state was supposed to be there to prevent it?
All of which can be done easily by the market. There are even subscription-based fire departments in many places.
Anarchy provides the strictest limitations on the power of government and the most generous liberties for the people. The only true "government of the people where people can address their peers about their concerns" which comes to mind is anarchic early Rhode Island.
Absolutely not. If I believed in "Might makes right" I would be a statist, get on the side of whoever is mightiest, and then proclaim the moral high ground.
Unlikely provided general armament and the lack of any easily aquired monopoly on policing. Should one police force harass the customers of another, the other would have it's own force to reckon with. And this is ignoring the fact that under anarchy, one would likely see a pistol on every second nightstand and a shotgun under every fifth bed and a rifle in every house, widespread carrying of sidearms, and more proficiency due to cheaper ammo and easily available suppressors to not bother the neighbors.
Hey, sorta like what we have right now! Except the only difference is that the oppressors call themselevs a government and have to at least look like they care while not giving a shit because you're not offering them a lot of bribe money like the rich businessman from downtown is.
Not absolutely impossible but not sustainable or likely. The costs would outweigh the benefits quickly.
Thus proving the inefficacy of the state at preventing it, making my case for me. Thank you.
Something else the state was supposed to prevent which it failed at.
You cite corrupt governments and then cite anarchism as fostering corruption? It is closed, monopolistic systems which foster corruption. Democratic states are more open than the tyrants of subsaharan Africa, that is why they are less corrupt.
Anarchism doesn't need to prevent corruption because it doesn't provide a state to be corrupted in the first place. Corruption is the symptom. The state is the disease.
In modern times there aren't many. But New Orleans was not an example of anarchism in practice. An example of anarchy, possibly, as the dictionary defines it as chaos. An example of anarchism in practice, absolutely not.
Okay fine, if not New Orleans then how about Iraq? The government there has no power outside of the "green zone". Yeah, I know you made some other points but that's like discussing how great heaven is without actually presenting an actual heaven. I'd just like to see some of this modern day anarchist utopia in practice.
It's not utopia, it's just better.
Iraq is not anarchistic at all. What the hell.
If a government lies about where it has the ability to enforce the law, will you believe that lie or not?
If you believe that lie, then anarchism in practice is almost impossible to show you. Your best chance of finding it would be to take a boat out into international waters. When everybody else was saying that Somalia was "anarchy", there was still a Somali government saying it was the rightful government of Somalia. Puntland and Somaliland are both relatively effective governments, but neither are (or were until extremely recently) recognized in the "international community" as countries, while Somalia, almost completely ineffective, is. It's based on what people in power want to believe, not based on what is. If you believe what they want (and want you) to believe, then I'll have a really hard time showing it to you.
If you don't believe that lie, and want to base it on facts, then anarchism in practice is the vast majority of your life. Anarchism in practice is every time you break a law that has no victims and get away with it. It's when you're going 80 on the Interstate and getting away with it. It's when you make a bet with your friend on professional sports. It's when you sell something at a garage sale and don't report your income to the IRS. That's anarchism in practice.
When a state collapses and violence ensues (as in Somalia), that is anarchy in every sense of the word, but not anarchism in practice. The conditions leading to social disorder and violence were created by the state and created an externality into anarchy. The products of the state must be attributed to the state, and the products of anarchism must be attributed to anarchism if you're going to go for a fair analysis.
So you have nothing to offer other than empty promises much like any religious missionary who comes to my door. You can claim that I base my position on lies but my attempt has been to get you to provide the examples that you claim work and are better than systems that are currently in place. So far you present nothing so I can't exactly be lying. So come back when you have something to offer other than emotional rhetoric and wishful thinking.
You don't understand. It'll work because of those magical forces of the invisible hand of the free market (borrowing a term from John Stossel). No matter what the problem is, you assume there will be "competition" to solve it. The private police contractor is offering preferential services resulting in priority given to guarding your rich neighbor's swimming pool? Go to the competition... I mean, after your family's been raped and killed. Oh, the competition has jacked up their prices in response to increased demand? Find someone else. What do mean those were the only two available in my area?
I have to wonder what laws they'd enforce anyway.
Yeah, kinda like how those advocates of the "free market" are losing billions on their high interest loans to people with bad credit. Funny how those free market capitalists are begging the government to bail them out (of course the poor still lose their homes because helping them out is evil socialist welfare).
I'm amazed that these laissez-faire capitalists are so ignorant about American history. Maybe it's the blind faith that they'll be part of the rich crowd some day if they just make other people rich enough. Face it, if you aren't rich now you won't be a part of the club in your lifetime (unless you win the lottery).
Well, I think the idea is that the failing corporations wouldn't have anybody to bail them out (they would be subject to "market forces" as individuals are now). But what would prevent a company from buying its failing competitors, becoming a de-facto monopoly for lack of serious competition?
And having no consistent legislative body, and having everyone "defend their property rights" begs the question of where rights begin and how they're enforced. Most people are respectful by nature, but say a handful in a town will interpret the freedom with a "wild west" mentality. With no final word on what's legal, and who has the right to enforce the law, there's a potential for such problems to escalate indefinitely.
I apologize if this message looks remarkably distorted, I'm having problems with firefox and Opera isn't playing nice with the wierd input system these forums use.
No, I offer consistency. I don't have to posit that people are too stupid to govern themselves but smart enough to govern each other. I don't have to posit that the 535 in congress can make rules that you have to obey but you can't make rules that the 535 in congress have to obey. I don't have to posit that on the job, a soldier has the right to murder, but a year later once out of the military murder is a crime. I don't have to posit that the government should be controlled by the people while denying the right of people to secede. I don't have to draw arbitrary lines in the sand. I don't have to posit that the government has this magical ability to solve problems (many of which observed only under the state) which no other group in society can have. I don't have to posit that we didn't need God to create the laws of physics but we need another abstract mythical benevolent omnipotent omniscient authoritarian fount of morality and justice to give us the laws of human interaction. I don't have to posit that there can be crime where there is no victim, nor do I have to make the massive leap in logic necessary to determine who has the right to enforce them.
You do, in order to defend a position compatible with the current United States.
Non sequitur.
But I don't have to provide examples if I can provide compelling reason supporting my claim, or establish principles as true which are incompatible with the state. Few people can point to a perfect example of their perfect ideal system, and those few invariably point toward their own government with the patriotic smile of ignorant bliss.
I've given you emotional rhetoric? Please point out where, because I don't want to repeat that mistake.
They're not magical, they're well understood. Magic is something one person can do that nobody else can do, for no appearant reason.
Strawman.
I personally don't think there'd be private police forces except to protect banks and the like.
The police (if they existed) wouldn't enforce laws. They'd just be there to protect people (unless they're actually just a mercenary force). Justice would be totally distinct. And that would just be a matter of torts and contracts.
I know, those damn hypocrites.
It's not ignorance, it's different interpretation. The curriculum taught in high school often gives people a misleading idea of what was going on at that point in history. Standard Oil was big at a time when oil use was small, they were refining it for use in lamps and stuff. People generally think a bunch of redneck bigots belligerently attacked the progressive northerners engaged in perfectly peaceful activity, over the issue of slavery. I don't know if they even teach about the Articles of Condeferation at all. They give a false impression that we had a free market in the late 1800s, and that it was the market that failed.
Maybe in a couple cases, I'm more motivated by my concept of justice than the idea that I'll get rich.
Nothing to stop that from happening in the first place, but the situation would be unstable and the market would be appealing to potential competitors, so it would eventually lose it's status unless it was monopoly out of sheer efficiency or a tiny niche market. And the former is really unlikely.
I gave Rothbard's explanation of "where rights begin" in the thread "Animal Rights", I'll copy it here if you'd like, but this'll already be a plenty long post as it is. And for what's legal and what isn't, everything is legal unless it has a victim who can prove that you comitted some damage to them somehow. There'd probably be no enforcement except defense of person against assault and property against an attempt at stealthy theft until the victim brought it to an arbitrator. I can go through that too but it'd take quite a bit of explaining because it's very different from how things work today.
Prove victimhood to whom? Your definitely-not-a-bureaucrat arbitrator? You've replaced a nominally-democratic system with a bare-faced plutocracy. Unless the ambitions of an emerging ruling class are kept in check, you'll only have succeeded in removing the limits to their unmitigated power.
You're drawing extremely wild conclusions considering I have told you almost nothing about what I advocate in terms of courts and justice except that there'd be a judge and that it would be tricky to explain adequately due to having little resemblance to the present system. If you see fit to bypass any explanation by me of what I advocate before passing judgement and drawing conclusions, then don't let me stop you, but don't expect credibility for it.
Since you act like you already know what I advocate judicially, please do explain it for the rest of us who don't know the position quite as well, and explain how it resembles plutocracy.
How does one qualify to be a judge? What role does life insurance play in a murder proceeding? What brings a suspect kangaroo court under jurisdiction of another court? Surely you have the answers to these simple questions if you know enough to predict it would become "bare-faced plutocracy".
Unless of course, you're making baseless accusations about something you're absolutely clueless about. In which case I have no reason to give you any of my attention at all anymore.
Oh, do explain it. I'm sure it's as wonderful as your current course of "action."
You obviously don't require an explanation because you know enough about it to predict that it'll become "bare-faced plutocracy". You explain it.
I'm not advocating it, bitch. I'm just arguing to argue at this point, cos you made no compelling argument whatsoever for your supposed ideology. Petty tax evasion and being a loudmouth don't a society make.
I haven't been trying to make a compelling argument for anarchism in this thread. In the first part of this thread I was arguing against the efficacy of voting. Then you started asking personal questions, so I answered those. They were all ad hominem and probably attempts to make me look like a hypocrite, but not you demanding a compelling argument for anarchism. Then you just started being a pain in the ass for the sake of being a pain in the ass. If your "reason" for arguing for the sake of argument is that I made no compelling argument, no shit. You never asked for one, why would you expect to be getting one?
Quote me saying it did.
You bitch about voting, and advocate telling people things. All you have is petty counterculture and ineffectual, rhetorical noise.
100% pure ad hom.
I've deconverted 9 other people to anarchism and had a helping hand in a couple others. Ineffectual wouldn't be the correct word to use to describe my noise.
Also, you do realize you're hijacking your own thread, don't you?
Wow, nine other quasi-bohemians who don't want to get real jobs yet. Watch out government, we're gonna watch "Fight Club" and drink Pabst.
And what did you do to further whatever cause you advocate?
Protests, letter-writing campaigns to stop the building of a massive chain store in the area. Donating lots of time, effort, and money to teaching, promoting, and fundraising for Asian American community/worker orgs. Participating in online voter organization sites, and sending friends and relatives voter cards with the positions explained.
I think campaign finance reform and moving the voting system to OSS will be necessary to bring real choice back to the elections system, though. For that I honestly don't know what to do. I'm looking for a movement that will make it happen.
What's the issue? Was there an argument in there somewhere? You listed Standard Oil and American Tobacco as two companies which gained market share through acquisition. So what? All you said was that American Tobacco and Standard Oil were figments of our imagination in response to my remark about State-operated monopolies and State-granted franchise monopolies. What was your point?
I have no objection to standards. I reject the notion that only the State can define standards. The computer and electronics industries have established thousands of standards without State intervention.
That's absurd but it offers insight into your thinking process and misunderstanding of economics.
BTW, what took place in New Orleans after Katrina wasn't anarchy. It was a massive and utter failure of central planning.
Zhwazi, you might find some articles and podcasts of Stefan Molyneux to be of interest. He has many excellent ideas regarding dispute resolution, protection, and justice in a free society.
I know Molyneux's position and disagree with him.
So what? It rather invalidates your claim that monpolies are created by the government. It's quite apparently you are still unable to discuss your religion with any degree of success so when you get a better understanding of history and economics come back and I may be bored enough to entertain your drivel.
Funfacts about the government's definition of monopoly:
1. If you charge a price below all your competition for a sustained period, you are a monopoly and this is punishable by law.
2. If you sell at the same price as all your competition for a sustained period, you are colluding, a monopolistic practice, punishable by law.
3. If you sell at a higher price than your competition for a sustained period, you are a monopoly, punishable by law.
You can't sell for less, more, or the same amount. If they want to call you a monopoly, they'll find an excuse to do it. You can't hide from THEIR dictionary.
Also in his defense, there are indirect government causes of monopoly. The Bell system is a good example of a directly-caused monopoly, but when the government does something like write the tax laws to give a deduction to a certain way of doing things that one company is doing, it tends to give exclusive advantage to one company, which tends to create monopoly symptoms. With the amount of government intervention that was present in the times of American Tobacco and Standard Oil, it would take a lot of research to determine that there had been no indirect governmental causes.
Another Funfact: When Rockefeller was charged with monopolistic practices, the punishment, suggested by Rockefeller to the judge, was that Standard Oil be broken up into multiple smaller firms, all still controlled by Rockefeller. This made his operations much more efficient because Standard Oil had become huge and unwieldy.
So how are your tactics in any way superior to his?
they dont include the dismantling of the state? they actually make use of the rights and priviledges granted to us by said "evil" state.
Really this entire thing is silly, its impossible to argue for the state because zwazhi will immediately claim our argument is invalid because the state is flawed.
Its like arguing with a theist, except worse.
And how is that better?
No, actually that's what arguing with you guys is. You assume that the government has the right to set the rules, and then ask why he doesn't want to play by them, even tough he never agreed to them.
The people are the government. How nice that you say we can't set our own rules. Naturally this doesn't apply to you because you seem perfectly immune to the limitations you press on the rest of us. Nice religion you have there.
I'm saying you can't set my rules.
But I guess it's too much for me to ask of you to not be an intellectually dishonest fuck.
That's exactly what you are saying. You can't get your way so government should be abolished so we can all have your view of freedom.
No I'm not.
You can set up any government, or any organisation you wish, as long as you don't force me to join, finance, or have anything to do with it in any way.
But I guess it's too much to ask of you to actually familiarize yourself with the position you're arguing against.
Oh I see, you just take what you want then whine when asked to contribute your part. Why not just leave and leave all these burdens that you take advantage of behind? Hypocrite.
How is it that I can't use something that was bought for the money stolen from me?
Why don't you charge people for what they actually want to use, like every other honest business, thief.