End of Empire

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Michael, Apr 19, 2015.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    The only way government distinguishes itself from other groups of people, is that is has the legal ability to initiate force against innocent people. Given everyone has their own interests, and think that using the Government to protect those interests (through regulatory capture) and becoming a rent-seeker is a great way to make a living (see medicine, law, hair stylists, bar owners, taxi drivers, central bankers, etc...) - Why on earth would you give these people the legal ability to initiate force against innocent people to become rent-seekers? Or at least why would you expect anything other than exactly what has happened, to happen (over priced medicine, drug wars, crony banks being bailed out, never ending wars, etc...). The fact is, government is WORSE than private companies because private companies eventually go bankrupt. Government on the other hand simply raises taxes, makes new laws and can even invade a country and force you to fight and die in a phony war.

    If you don't like the idea of giving a group of people the power to steal from the innocent, commit fraud against the innocent, use force against the innocent, even to the point of murdering them, then you really don't like the idea of government because that's what it was created for. It has the one special legal exception. Other than that, it's no different than any other group of people. We have public hospitals and private. Public universities and private. Public roads and private. Yet, with this one exception, the government has grown to be the largest most powerful institution in the world. It can sell T-bonds to bailout crony buddies and use the police to make you and your children, and their children pay for them. It can invade counties. Nuke cities. It can even send you to prison for smoking a weed. And if you resist, it can kill you. Private organizations of people cannot do that.

    New laws can be written any time people voluntarily agree to them - as a matter of fact, this is why contract is important. The basic laws are there to protect private property and see that contract is upheld.

    Yes, companies did own towns - but, the only reason why those companies were in business was because a bunch of middle class people were buying products produced by that company. A better way to deal with these companies are (a) private unions (b) competition (c) don't buy their products. Much of Midland MI was built and owned by Dow Chemical. You can see the way the houses are aligned with shared parks, etc... all of this was done to entice people to come and live in Midland and work for Dow. That's what happens when there's competition for skilled labor and the same is true today if you have the right skill sets. Which is why we NEED free markets, so that people open businesses and drive up the demand for labor-hours.

    Companies cannot gun down anyone who is protesting - that's illegal as it violates the private property of the person being gunned down. Thus, the person ordering the gunning will be prosecuted by the government for violation of property / murder. Is this what happened in your example? Did the government do the right thing? Did the CEO / owners go to prison?


    Yes, the first step is peaceful parenting with non-violent rational negotiation being a cornerstone of the developmental process. It's probably also be a good idea not to force children to attend a standard government school as the pedagogy is flawed and getting worse.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Imagine if you went to a State where you require a licence to cut hair. And you opened a hair salon and cut hair without a State licence. People like your work, they pay you. Done. But, along comes an Agent of the State who says you need their permission to engage in trade. You tell them to piss off. They call the police. You resist being put in a cage. You are killed. The only reason this doesn't happen in the USA is because (a) people now accept it as normal to ask permission to engage in trade and (b) fear. If you think this is the right direction for society to go - then you're in luck. Because the State's government is expanding and removing more of our civil liberties every day. Meaning that there are more things to be fearful of.

    The FCC just recently made the internet a public utility. How much longer before we need a State log-on ID, you know, for our own protection? How about licences to open a website? How about demonstrating their's a need for a website before being given permission to open it? How about being liable for anything and everything posted on a website you own? How about ensuring the internet adhere to all of the same standards as other 'public' utilities - no nudity, no swearing, and etc...? Does that sound good? How about an internet tax to pay for all this - maybe $100 a month?

    That sound great to many of the people who work at the FCC. They'd like nothing better than to 'clean up' this mess that is the unregulated nearly free-market internet and make a nice fat 6 figure salary while doing it. And, given Americans love to be regulated, my guess is they will. The NSA already collects all of our emails, posts, SMS, etc.... do Americans care? Nope.

    Thus, the last free-market will have been closed down to the cheers of hyper-regulated Americans because their TV told them maybe, someday, possibly, their internet might go up in cost by $0.25 a month, even though there's no evidence of this happening. Or that their CrapFlicks might be slowed, although there is no evidence of this having being done on purpose. We don't live in the USA any longer. So, my suggestion is you get yourself a job as a rent-seeker and/or agent of the State. Don't worry about 'turning things around' - that's not going to happen.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Any bankers that did not commit fraud would not be jailed - many did commit fraud and instead of being jailed their bank (that we bailed out) pays a 'fine' and it's business as usual. Further, my main point is that NONE of these crony-banks would have been bailed out and thus, right now, there's be a lot less of the 0.1% along with their incompetent bankers.

    But that isn't what Americans want. They want to bail out the 0.1% because without the 0.1% who'd tell them what to do and how to do it? Then who'd they whine about? No, Americans prefer to whine and normalize to a lower standard of living with less civil liberties.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I'm suggesting that without regulatory capture and rent-seeking, there'd be a lot less poor and the productive gains of the last century would be more equally distributed.

    Again, I'm suggesting that given 100 years of technological advance, people are doing less well off due to regulatory capture and rent-seeking. This is evident by Government schooling where people can be directly compared to 100 years ago and the literacy rate is lower. This is what happens when the government 'redistributes' resources and is exactly why communist nations, that had a huge government - went backwards and did so very quickly. Government redistribution is simply not efficient at 'guessing' what it thinks you want - compared to you thinking what you want. Also, sound money, with a free market, ensures the price of goods reflect their cost.

    We now have the largest most intrusive government in the history of humanity - let's see what the literacy rate is like in another 100 years. Maybe 1 in 50 will be able to read this post and understand what the words mean. And I'm sure people then will blame the Koch brothers or someone equivalent and worship their government through flag waving and parade watching (see: North Korea).
     
  8. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    There's only been one case of a true monopoly Joe, that was in aluminium and after the company was busted up the price went up. As a matter of fact, every time they tried to raise their price competition quickly entered the market and they were forced to drop their price again. Once the market was 'regulated' they all raised their prices naturally. The ONLY thing driving the insanely low aluminium price was a drive to be extremely efficient to maintain the monopoly.

    Right now, the word's high-end silicon (even the pentagon) is made by a single Japanese company (family owned). Yet *GASP* I don't see you whining about the price of silicon. Why is that? Because exactly like the aluminium example, this company forced its German competitors out of business by keeping their prices low and have continued to keep them low to fend off Chinese and Taiwanese competitors. They've had a monopoly for over a decade and *GASP* they still work to keep their prices extremely low - which is one of the main reasons why electronics are cheap!

    You may want to re-read what happened to the price of oil after Standard Oil was broken up - the price went up and the Rockefeller's fortune quadrupled within 10 years.

    Now, if you want to talk about REAL monopolies - how about the one the State hold on violence? Why are you so quick to defend THAT monopoly!? (for examples so: DoED, FCC, DoD, NSA, USFDA, and ect....) And it's a sickening one given it's a monopoly on violence against innocent people. How about the monopoly the central bank has on our currency? How about the monopoly the State grants Universities to issue licences to conduct trade? How about the near-monopoly the AMA has on medicine? Or Rx? Or the millions of other rent-seeking scams.

    Monopolies are quickly ended by competition in a FREE market. The real monopolies are maintained by the State everyone worships. And it's one of the primary reasons why wages are low because (a) many low-skilled workers have difficulties negotiating the paperwork to get permission to open a business (thank you Government schooling) and many are intimidated because it's hard to run a business (b) regulatory capture outright prevents many from ever being legally allowed to open business.

    We've all read of the skilled professional (doctors, lawyers, professors, etc...) who simply lied about their qualification and worked in their field for decades. The only reason this doesn't happen more often is because people are generally honest. The point being we don't need the State to determine who is qualified, we can do this ourselves through private licencing and then it's simply a matter of contract fraud. Again, we do NOT NEED the State, these problems are not that hard to sort out. What we need is LESS government and more freedom. Not less freedom and more government. Most of you here are arguing for less freedom AND less competition because you support more regulation and licencing. Well, you may get 'regulated' services, but they will not be cheap and will not be of high quality either.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Except, that simply isn’t true Michael, there have been many monopolies. And as much as you want to ignore the Robber Baron Era, you cannot erase it from the history books. Aluminum was indeed a monopoly. But that is about all you have correct.

    Aluminum was a very rare commodity, and because of its rarity, it commanded very high prices and because prices were so high, there was little demand for the metal. Then along came 2 gentlemen who invented a process to cheaply refine the metal. They had the metal, but there was little demand for the metal, so they lowered prices in order to increase demand. Then Alcoa (their company) was cited for violation of antitrust laws, but then WWII happened. And that is when the government implemented price controls and set the price for aluminum at an all-time low. Then as the WWII ended, new companies like Kaiser Aluminum entered the industry and Alcoa was no longer a monopoly and the antitrust charges were dropped. Alcoa wasn’t forced to divest. “Govment” antitrust actions didn’t bust up the aluminum monopoly by fiat. WWII broke up the aluminum industry. Aluminum prices rose after WWII because demand for aluminum soared.

    Hmm, why the secrecy Michael, who is this company? Japan isn’t even on the top 11 list of silicon producing companies.
    We have discussed this many times before Michael. Shit doesn’t get better with age.
    Now were you not the guy who has been arguing monopolies are good? So now you are contradicting yourself, monopolies are now bad? Which is it Michael, are Monopolies good or bad?
    Except they don’t. Monopolists are the antithesis of free markets. So it is kind of funny to see you and your fellow Libertarians defend them and extol their virtues. Monopolies are not cured by free markets. Monopolists use their economic power to thwart competition by creating barriers to entry. That is history Michael. That is why we have antitrust laws on the books. The merger of Time Warner and Comcast recently fell victim to government antitrust law. Government kept a monopoly from forming.
     
  10. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Your paragraph is all over the place.
    1. Yes, there are freer societies - depending on what you are measuring as 'freedom'.
    - In Japan for example, Japanese are 'free' to sell beer, cigarettes, wine and liquor out of a vending machine.
    - In Sweden any citizen can *GASP* bicycle without a helmet (this led to their invention of an air bag helmet).
    - In China it's much easier to start a business, China is actually much more Captialistic relative to many 'Western' countries (ex: England) and as a result will soon be the richest nation in history.
    - Any Peruvian citizen can cut hair without a licence.

    2. No one said 'The Kochs' can do whatever they want. WTF Joe? This isn't even the level of a 6th grader strawman. Believe it or not Joe, having civil 'freedom' isn't a 'free for all'. I find it telling most Americans no longer understand what the word free refers to. So, no "The Kochs" would not be able to 'do what they will'. If anything, "The Kochs" and others like them are much better off in a Statist society as they can and do use the State to secure freedoms for themselves - along with market share.

    3. No Joe, stealing would be illegal in a civil free society - that's called private property rights. Funny thing is this: You don't mind when the State steals our private property (income tax) and gives it to crony warmonger Statist companies (like the Kochs). Why is it you seem to think stealing is wrong when "The Kochs" do it (and there's no evidence they have) but role over when the State steals your labor hours, forces you buy licences off it, and then has the gall to sell bonds on your grandkids future to bailout the very same 'Kochs' you whine about while forcing you to use a fiat currency it creates and inflates.

    The State is evil on all measures and if this were a company doing this stuff you'd be up in arms about it. The ONLY reason you let the State do these things are because you were raised to worship the State. You held your hand over your heart and pledged yourself to the State just like some Theobot in the middle east reciting some gobbledygook out of a crankp0t's magic book.

    The only one disconnected around here is you.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  11. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Provide the evidence Joe. As for the "Robber Baron Era" - that just happened to coincide with the greatest wealth creation for the most people in the history of the human race Joe. "Robber Baron" is a statement a demagogue would use.

    JUNE 1, 2000
    Thomas J. DiLorenzo
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  12. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    also on the rise are riots, problems with racism, genetically modified food tasting like crap, obesity, environmental problems, illegal inflow of immigrati... and on ...and on...and on
     
  13. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    IN a free market monopolies are hard to establish - and only do so by serving up a produce or service people greatly want at a price they desire. If the so-called monopolist tries to raise prices, competition comes in and takes market share. Yes, in the short term people get pissed off and either go without, or pay more. But as soon as the competition offers a different product (take a bus or train as opposed to flying, or fly a small plane instead of a large jet) they don't tend to come back to the crap company that tried to skim a few extra bucks off them, thus putting that company out of business. Which is why, in free markets, this doesn't happen. Shareholders like to see long-term growth, not a short term spike followed by bankruptcy.
     
  14. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    The GMO labelling is a great example of why we don't need a State regulatory agency and shouldn't have one.

    Firstly, many companies like Monsanto lobby to ensure their food isn't labelled GMO. Because most Americans just assume whatever crap the FDA stamps as 'food' is actually food, they don't support small companies who could create a business certifying organic foods. As a matter of fact, where such companies have been started, the FDA is stepping into that market and putting them out of business by offering their own sub-par version of "Organic". I find this particularly perverse as it's an example of a belligerent company (the FDA) using the State to put their competition out of business - and worse still, that same competition has to pay tax TO their competitors at the FDA! That's asinine and insane! Many people at the FDA go on to work at Monsanto - creating the very paperwork they'll be in charge of once they get their plumb job in industry!

    Secondly, while I do not want to eat GMO food and try to buy and support organic when given the option - particularly for milk, cheese and meat. Who am I to say what another person should eat? We can use simple private property laws and contract law to ensure products are (a) what they say they are and (b) safe. Anyone who has worked for a large Agro will know their standards are 1000 x's more stringent compared to the FDA. Primarily because they don't want to lose customers. Which is why capitalism is actually a virtue. You have to serve people voluntarily in a free market. The State on the other hand, simply uses force. Due to it's inherently evil nature, the State typically goes on to bring about the very worse in society. Like setting one group of people against another. Whites against Blacks or Men against Women. That's why most of what hear from politicians is pond-scum demagoguery.
     
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    RE: The Monopoly

    The American Tobacco Company was found guilty of "monopolization" in 1911, even though the price of cigarettes (per thousand) had declined from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907, despite a 40 percent increase in raw material costs.

    In what is perhaps the best example of nonsensical double-talk in antitrust history, in 1944 Judge Learned Hand found Alcoa guilty of "monopolizing" the virgin ingot aluminum market by employing "superior skill and foresight" which the judge feared had "forestalled" competition by those businesses with less skill and foresight. He condemned Alcoa for being extremely adept at correctly anticipating market demand for its product and then supplying that demand, to the "exclusion" of its less efficient competitors. Alcoa "embraced every new opportunity" with a "great" organization, said the judge, and manned the organization with "elite business personnel." It was obvious to the confused and befuddled Judge Hand that gaining market share through entrepreneurial excellence should be illegal.

    In 1962 the government forbade the Brown Shoe Company, which had 1 percent of the shoe market, from acquiring Kinney Shoes, which also had a 1 percent market share. A company with 2 percent of the shoe market, according to the government, constituted a monopoly.

    In 1969 IBM, the Microsoft of the day, had a 65 percent market share in the computer market and was sued by the government for allegedly monopolizing the industry. IBM was mired in a court battle for thirteen years before the government finally gave up on the case. In the meantime, the company was eclipsed by Intel and other competitors while Microsoft had just produced, in 1981, its first copy of MS-DOS. The government's assault on IBM undoubtedly weakened the company and weakened the level of competition in the industry as well. This has happened time and again as a result of Quixotic antitrust prosecutions.

    In 1962 the government forced the Schwinn Bicycle Company to divorce itself from its network of dealers; foreign competition eventually drove Schwinn into bankruptcy.

    General Motors was never prosecuted, but because of the company's fear of antitrust it was official company policy from 1937 until 1956 to never let its market share top 45 percent, for any reason. This fear of antitrust prosecution contributed to the industry's dramatic losses in market share to the Japanese and German automakers during the 1970s and '80s.

    RCA was prohibited by antitrust regulators from charging royalties to American licensees, so the company licensed its products to Japanese companies. The entire Japanese electronics industry is based on this.

    Antitrust regulation killed Pan American World Airways by forbidding it from acquiring domestic routes. Lacking "feeder" traffic for its international flights, the company went bankrupt.

    Most Americans have never heard of any of these facts because they have been fed the Official History of antitrust, which is that free markets are a source of monopoly power which must restrained by enlightened antitrust regulators.

    The truth is that monopoly is impossible in a free market; government is the true source of monopoly; and antitrust itself has never done anything but render American industry less competitive while inflicting great harm on consumers. The standard account of antitrust regulation being in "the public interest" is truly Orwellian.
     
  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    • Per the site rules (as well as the concepts of basic decency), Plagiarism is not permissible.
    Alcoa (1945)
    US v. Aluminum Company of America (1945) is one of the most egregious anticonsumer antitrust cases on record. Modern trustbusters are forever offering apologies for Alcoa. And with good reason. The government pursued Alcoa in court for 13 years (between 1937 and 1950). Yet after a long and laborious trial that ended in 1939, Judge Caffey dismissed almost 150 separate government charges against the defendant Alcoa, including allegations that they monopolized waterpower sites (for producing electricity) and monopolized the raw material bauxite, from which aluminum ingot is made. Caffey also determined that Alcoa innovated rapidly, expanded aluminum refining capacity and outputs continuously, and had lowered aluminum ingot prices for 50 years, while taking a very modest return on its investment.

    Yet an appellate court in 1945 (acting in lieu of the Supreme Court) decided that expanding outputs and lowering prices illegally excluded rivals from the opportunity to compete and thereby violated antitrust law. (Translation: if Alcoa had been less efficient in serving its customers there would have been more "competition" — read competitors — less exclusion, and no antitrust violation.) The Alcoa appellate decision confirmed that antitrust was hell bound: economic efficiency now counted as illegally exclusionary and ultimately a violation of law.
     
  17. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Imagine if the US Congress and POTUS had the legal right to use force against Chinese. Oh the demagoguery we'd hear. I'm 100% confident the Chinese would be found guilty of numerous 'monopolies' for working too hard at too low a price and thus instead of China becoming one of the richest nations in the world, it's still be dirt poor (like what has happened to much of the USA). No wonder so many US manufacturers left the USA for China. Who'd waste time trying to get anything done in business-unfriendly USA? Not many, that's for sure.
     
  18. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    FYI, I'm not in favour of "government redistribution". I'm in favour of society taking care of its weaker members - and history shows that voluntary charity fails miserably at doing that. A government that can't/doesn't provide its citizens with the basic necessities of life is a waste of oxygen.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I wonder why you neglected to provide the source of the material you posted. Actually, if I sourced material from your source, I wouldn't want that fact to be known either. Your Von Mises source is wrong on a number of issues especially the "translations". It's kind of funny that you Libertarians need to translate normal English to Libertarian English where traditional word definitions no longer apply. Judge Learned Hand wrote the relevant opinion not Caffey. But I don’t understand how you think this is even remotely relevant to you claim that Alcoa was the only true monopoly. Obviously, the US courts didn’t agree with you. Did you not write this?
    As I said before prior to WWII Alcoa was a monopoly. However, there was this little thing called WWII which led the US government to implement price controls which fixed aluminum prices at almost half their prewar prices – the lowest prices in the history of commercial aluminum business. During the war new companies entered the aluminum market and Alcoa was no longer a monopoly. The post war aluminum price increases were due to increased demand created by the rebuilding of Europe and Japan (i.e. the Marshal Plan) and because price controls were eliminated. You falsely attributed WWII aluminum pricing to a monopoly.

    "Hand remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of the remedy. In 1947, Alcoa made the argument to the court that there were two effective new entrants into the aluminum market – Reynolds and Kaiser – as a result of demobilization after the war and the government's divestiture of defense plants. In other words, the problem had solved itself and no judicial action would be required. On this basis, the district court judge ruled against divestiture in 1950, but the court retained jurisdiction over the case for five years, so that it could look over Alcoa's shoulder and ensure that there was no re-monopolization" Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa
     
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Ok, where is your evidence which supports your beliefs? You don't have any Michael. We have been down this road many times before Michael, shit doesn't get better with age.
     
  21. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Let me make sure I have your argument correct. Because to me it sounds non sequitur.

    1) In a democracy (or republic), public servants support the 'will of the people'.
    2) Therefore public servants would only 'take care of' the weaker members of 'society' when the majority of the people in said society were in favor of doing so?
    3) Yet, at the same time this very same majority of people do not want to get involved with or pay to actual take care of the poorest people in society.
    4) Therefore the threat of violence must be used (government) to force 'society' to take of the people? Even though the majority of people support taking care of the poor and would willing do so because a majority of them voted for Public Servants to do so?!

    Is this correct?

    It obviously costs a lot more money, time and resources when you have to use force to take from some people (who aren't paying) to take care of some other people. You don't think there's ANY OTHER non-violent way of organizing society to care for the most needy?

    Also, you really think that Government housing slums are successful? And voluntary charity fail miserably? Really? Generational welfare is successful? A 50% dropout rate and less than 20% a inner city slum / Government Charity kids having the ability to read and write - this is 'successful'? Really? Incentivizing teenagers to have 4 children out of wedlock by offering them a Government housing slum apartment when they hit #4 - this is the path to success?

    As someone who was raised on Government Charity - I'd have to disagree. Government regulations make it difficult for the poor to open businesses and compete in the markets. Government licencing schemes lead to rent-seeking on the part of the rent-seeking market participants. Government over-regulation, currency inflation, and wage control has led to many factories to move to China - where those 'poor' Chinese are (within a generation) becoming the richest nation in history.

    While we can never know, I'd argue there'd be very few truly poor in the USA if we simply had free open markets. Therefore the so-called weakest would be quite minimal and IF most people truly cared for them - then they'd take care of them. Americans gave s 335.17 billion in 2013 alone. Smack in the middle of the GFC.

    How about this?
    Suppose instead of taking on debt obligations by selling T-bonds and taxing the labor-hours of labourers, that instead the central bank was closed and the US Treasury simply printed money as was needed (for an example see: greenback, a paper currency issued by the US during the Civil War and came in two flavors - Demand Notes and US Notes). Or something else. Then this money was used to pay for the goods and services needed by the poorest most vulnerable in society. At the same time, no one was required to use those dollars. IOWs, you could use the USD, or, you could choose to use a different currency. If the money was managed correctly, then people would naturally want to access it. If not, then they wouldn't, they'd use a different currency. Therefore, your using the USD, would implicitly mean you support how that money is being spent. Suppose a company like Apple or small shop front said, nope, not using it. Well, if 'society' generally liked that money, they'd lose business.

    Of course, we don't have to trial this experiment, but at least it would be a moral voluntary way of conducting business. As problems arise, well, that's great - it means more opportunity at creating new products, goods and services. In this way we start out using a moral system AND our solutions must fit within a moral framework. Instead we use an amoral system based on violence, threat of coercion, imprisonment and even murder. The solutions people are looking for are within this structural framework. Therefore we continue to create more violence, threat of coercion, imprisonment and even murder. The USA government now imprisons more non-violent humans in cages than any other nation in the history of the human race, the US government is the largest polluter in history, the US government is the largest single consumer of limited resources in history, the US government just bailed out the richest crony capitalists in the world and you will be murdered if you resist paying for it.

    No one knows the solution (see: David Hume's Problem of Induction). But, at least we can set up a moral framework such that any so-called solutions must work within what is moral (see: Immanuel Kant on Ethics).

    But, that's not what we're going to do. What we're going to do is become more violent, use more threats of coercion, imprison more humans (many innocent) and murder innocent people who make the mistake of not following along with the violence. By changing the meaning of a few words, anyone who stands for non-violence (less government) will be vilified (and are). And that's the way things are going be for many decades to come. My guess is, with the exception of the top 0.01%, eventually the rest of society will reflect those 'successful' Government welfare ghettos. And, if history is anything to go by, the 0.01% would probably like to have a couple major wars as well. Which, at 600 billion a year on phony wars already - isn't really deviating much from the norm.

    And that's the way things go.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Do you even know what the word 'evidence' means Joe? If so, then simply back up and re-read the post where I listed 'evidence' that monopolies are almost never formed and when they are they mostly do not last long unless they serve up a very very efficient cheap product people want.
     
  23. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    The link is right there at the top of the previous post in bright blue and bolded!
     

Share This Page