Is government necessary?

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]It is necessary, but not to the extent we have now. Governments are proficient at exerting force and little else. This is necessary to prevent the violation of an individuals rights. But defense of a nation's sovereignty and the security of its individuals rights are all a government should be responsible for. X4D

This is exactly the problem. The belief in natural human rights. But the fact is that nature doesn't give us any rights. Does a human have any more right to live, than say a dog or a cat?

Individual rights are a fiction invented by greedy human beings to further their own interests. I contend that all "rights" are an invention of the human mind. To the extent that they exist at all, it is as a social/political agreement between people concerning establishment of a baseline of mutual respect and deference. Once we'll except that there is no such thing as natural individual rights, we'll be more altruistic and less defensive with each other.

Is government necessary? Could we not live without government?

I never completely bought the idea that government is necessary because humans are too selfish. If humans are too selfish then government is also going to be selfish, the difference is that government has authority and can abuse people. What i don't like about capitalist governments is that they protect the rich from the poor, giving them services, security and privileges and enforce the system of unjust wealth distribution. It's like a plutocracy, government run by the rich or for the rich.

X4D

First of all, this entire world is based on the fact that people cannot be trusted. It's in the smallest of things. Just take a look at the fact why there are cash registers, why there's police, why there are codes on nearly everything that works digitally, why there are locks on your door. If we need to protect ourselves in everyday life from the 'evil' humans can generate, I wouldn't even want to know what happens if there's no government to keep things within the limit of the acceptable.

Second of all, you contradict yourself. First you question the need of a government, then you criticize the economic policies of capitalist governments: capitalism walks hand in hand with the idea of a free market, which means the government does the most minimal of efforts to influence the economy, so most companies can do whatever they want, and there's certainly no redistribution of wealth. To enforce such redistribution, the answer isn't clearly reducing your influence on economy and society as a whole to zero (as an anarchy would suggest), but increasing the grip on economy.

Your post just sounds like some poor populist anarcho-communist propaganda talk if any.

First of all, this entire world is based on the fact that people cannot be trusted. It's in the smallest of things. Just take a look at the fact why there are cash registers, why there's police, why there are codes on nearly everything that works digitally, why there are locks on your door. If we need to protect ourselves in everyday life from the 'evil' humans can generate, I wouldn't even want to know what happens if there's no government to keep things within the limit of the acceptable.

Second of all, you contradict yourself. First you question the need of a government, then you criticize the economic policies of capitalist governments: capitalism walks hand in hand with the idea of a free market, which means the government does the most minimal of efforts to influence the economy, so most companies can do whatever they want, and there's certainly no redistribution of wealth. To enforce such redistribution, the answer isn't clearly reducing your influence on economy and society as a whole to zero (as an anarchy would suggest), but increasing the grip on economy.

Your post just sounds like some poor populist anarcho-communist propaganda talk if any.DraugenCP

You say anarcho-communist like it's a bad thing. Anarcho-communism is far better and more just than anarcho-capitalism.

According to anarcho-capitalist propaganda private property is the most important thing in society and should be protected at all cost which actually amounts to fascism. Anarcho-capitalists will protect their private property at any cost even if it amounts to setting up their own violent and abusive private defense agencies which are completely anti-anarchist.

I don't believe anarchy can exist for long sustained periods of time -- there will always be governments, it is human nature.MetalGear_Ninty

Only if you believe in human nature in the first place. In my opinion there is no such thing as human nature.

of course we need government.. who else would i pay my taxes to without it? who else would we trust to invade another nation, killing thousands and thousands in the name of liberation??

Even in hunter/gatherer societies there was some form of hierarchy; a primative government if you will.MattUD1

i would much rather have that sort of government then the ones there are now, its just simple

[QUOTE="jointed"]Wrong. Conservatism isn't an ideology in itself, it's just a philosophy that prioritizes tradition and traditional values. You can have communist-conservatism and you can have anarchist-conservatism...it all depends on what the traditional values are.X4D

Conservatives are resistant to change. They want to conserve the hierarchial status quo which is anti-anarchist. Conservatives believe in anarchism just like the Nazis believed in socialism.

actually jointed is right on this one.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]First of all, this entire world is based on the fact that people cannot be trusted. It's in the smallest of things. Just take a look at the fact why there are cash registers, why there's police, why there are codes on nearly everything that works digitally, why there are locks on your door. If we need to protect ourselves in everyday life from the 'evil' humans can generate, I wouldn't even want to know what happens if there's no government to keep things within the limit of the acceptable.

Second of all, you contradict yourself. First you question the need of a government, then you criticize the economic policies of capitalist governments: capitalism walks hand in hand with the idea of a free market, which means the government does the most minimal of efforts to influence the economy, so most companies can do whatever they want, and there's certainly no redistribution of wealth. To enforce such redistribution, the answer isn't clearly reducing your influence on economy and society as a whole to zero (as an anarchy would suggest), but increasing the grip on economy.

Your post just sounds like some poor populist anarcho-communist propaganda talk if any.X4D

You say anarcho-communist like it's a bad thing. Anarcho-communism is far better and more just than anarcho-capitalism.

According to anarcho-capitalist propaganda private property is the most important thing in society and should be protected at all cost which actually amounts to fascism. Anarcho-capitalists will protect their private property at any cost even if it amounts to setting up their own violent and abusive private defense agencies which are completely anti-anarchist.

I don't believe anarchy can exist for long sustained periods of time -- there will always be governments, it is human nature.MetalGear_Ninty

Only if you believe in human nature in the first place. In my opinion there is no such thing as human nature.

anarchy simply means without a government. i mean if you talk to a pretentious punk rocker you might get 8 million different incoherent explainations but thats what it means.

a system like communism is far too complicated to be anarchy. in anarcho-capitalism you at least have the option of living the way you want, even if youdont contribute to society at all. if you work for someone else (which, in this system wouldnt make sense really) you have the option of leaving.

the idea of "pure anarchy" just cant happen, and communism has less to do with anarchy than capitalism does. although neither really give you the true spirit of it. the real anarchy is just impossible as it would require that there be no leadership anywhere. it would only really work if humans were solitary animals.

so if you want to live like an anarchist, get off the internet and go live in the woods by yourself. until then youre a hypocrite. :)

I agree with the objectivist ethics regarding what type of government would be best, which says that the basic social principle of the objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force--i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others.

Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism.

Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, i.e.,to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force. Thus, I reject any form of collectivis, such as fascism or socialism. I also reject the current "mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth

Free market ftw !

It depends how many people you got, if you're the US or Russia then yes. If you're living in The Village then no. I think the ultimate would be to have no need for a government, with everyone working together for the greater good; unfortunately that'll never happen on a large scale.blackngold29

anarchy simply means without a government. i mean if you talk to a pretentious punk rocker you might get 8 million different incoherent explainations but thats what it means.

a system like communism is far too complicated to be anarchy. in anarcho-capitalism you at least have the option of living the way you want, even if you dont contribute to society at all. if you work for someone else (which, in this system wouldnt make sense really) you have the option of leaving.

the idea of "pure anarchy" just cant happen, and communism has less to do with anarchy than capitalism does. although neither really give you the true spirit of it. the real anarchy is just impossible as it would require that there be no leadership anywhere. it would only really work if humans were solitary animals.

so if you want to live like an anarchist, get off the internet and go live in the woods by yourself. until then youre a hypocrite. :)

H8sMikeMoore

I think it's the other way around. Communism focuses on the commune and is therefore less complex than capitalism. The final long-term goal of communism is a stateless and classless society which has more to do with anarchism.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is a lot of government. Everywhere in capitalism there is government ranging from universities, colleges, financial institutions, corporations, funds, supermarket checkout points where there are cashiers who collect and manage money with computers. In other words...almost everywhere.

I agree with the objectivist ethics regarding what type of government would be best, which says that the basic social principle of the objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force--i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others

Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use.HJrAS_PT

But there are moral question with that. Capitalists believe that maintaining private property claims is always defensive so long as that property was obtained in a way they believe to be legitimate. Thus, so long as an employee and employer agree to terms, employment is regarded as free and mutual regardless of the circumstances of property restriction surrounding it. This ignores constraints on action due to both human and nonhuman factors, such as the need for food and shelter, and active restriction of both used and unused resources by those enforcing property claims.Thus, if a person requires employment in order to feed and house himself, it is said that the employer-employee relationship cannot be free and mutual, because the employer restricts the use of resources from the employee in such a way that he cannot meet his needs.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]anarchy simply means without a government. i mean if you talk to a pretentious punk rocker you might get 8 million different incoherent explainations but thats what it means.

a system like communism is far too complicated to be anarchy. in anarcho-capitalism you at least have the option of living the way you want, even if you dont contribute to society at all. if you work for someone else (which, in this system wouldnt make sense really) you have the option of leaving.

the idea of "pure anarchy" just cant happen, and communism has less to do with anarchy than capitalism does. although neither really give you the true spirit of it. the real anarchy is just impossible as it would require that there be no leadership anywhere. it would only really work if humans were solitary animals.

so if you want to live like an anarchist, get off the internet and go live in the woods by yourself. until then youre a hypocrite. :)

X4D

I think it's the other way around. Communism focuses on the commune and is therefore less complex than capitalism. The final long-term goal of communism is a stateless and classless society which has more to do with anarchism.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is a lot of government. Everywhere in capitalism there is government ranging from universities, colleges, financial institutions, corporations, funds, supermarket checkout points where there are cashiers who collect and manage money with computers. In other words...almost everywhere.

hah. listen man, you really need to brush up on economics. capitalism is definitely the best economic system for small government, if you think the USA is capitalist you need to read up a bit. and your " universities, colleges, financial institutions, corporations, funds, supermarket checkout points where there are cashiers who collect and manage money with computers. In other words...almost everywhere." statement is one of the most ridiculous things ive heard on this forum, but I think you already made a thread about this, in which everyone pretty much gave you :|

colleges are not an example of government. they are businesses, same with everything else you mentioned. there are communtiy and state colleges, but thats not an example of capitalism so much as it is an example of our mixed economy.

anyway heres what capitalism REALLY IS: voluntary exchange of goods and services. heres a little wikipedia entry

"Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit[1] and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market.[2] Capitalism is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and corporations to trade, using money, in goods, services (including finance), labor and land. [2] Ideally, capitalist systems are governed by the free price system set by the law of supply and demand rather than government regulation,[3] though this does not exclude government defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market[4] and the provision of a few basic public goods.[5] ****c unrestrained capitalism is currently confined to theory, as "all of the capitalistic societies of the West have mixed economies that temper capitalism" with interventionist government regulation and social programs.[6]"

and the next statement where it says government can regulate the basic rules of the market is not an example of how "capitalism is government". That refers to the laws against monopolies and such. BASIC rules, not excessive ones.

"i think its the other way around. communism focuses on the commune and is therefor less complex"

Okay, so where exactly is your point? This is a great example of a BLANK statement. in order to make sure people dont use private property, you need to have extreme regulation. Theres no way around it, its not possible to not have extreme regulation in communism, because like i said you need to make sure nobody exploits the "everything for free, everyone must work to give basic needs to everyone" idea. The second someone tries getting something personal out of it, your entire economic structure falls apart. Mind telling me how this system dosent need extreme regulation? I fully expect an answer from you that isnt something along the lines of "people will just do it, nobody will try to have private property" if you say something like that, I will take it as you admitting you're wrong. Just letting you know.

. Capitalism (especially pure capitalism)dosent reallyrequire anything,the ony real "point" to capitalism is private property that is freely exchanged without government regulation. Infact, in a capitalist society you could withdrawl entirely from the monitary system. you can use any form of trade you can think of, infact you can not trade at all. you cna just go live in a cave somewhere if your heart desires. Thats the beauty of the individual rights of individualism.

Capitalist theor dosent recognize race, class or anything. People might, even in a capitalist society, but the economic system its self does not. However communism has to, in order to make sure everyyone is "equal" for example, in a communist society its said that theres no racial bias. Well, a communist society has to be aware of it in order to make sure it isnt happening. however, capitalist theory never even mentions race. This goes to show that communism, in all its forms and even in "the end result" (laughable) requires government. Karl Marx was not intelligent, and no he didnt think of an idea t hat was "good on paper" either. It falls apart immediately. Im sorry, but its true.

oh, and before any smarty pants gets the idea to play on my words, no im not saying theres no racists in a capitalist society :) Theres no reason to think that, but I know theres trolls here.

[QUOTE="HJrAS_PT"]

I agree with the objectivist ethics regarding what type of government would be best, which says that the basic social principle of the objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force--i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others

Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use.X4D

But there are moral question with that. Capitalists believe that maintaining private property claims is always defensive so long as that property was obtained in a way they believe to be legitimate. Thus, so long as an employee and employer agree to terms, employment is regarded as free and mutual regardless of the circumstances of property restriction surrounding it. This ignores constraints on action due to both human and nonhuman factors, such as the need for food and shelter, and active restriction of both used and unused resources by those enforcing property claims.Thus, if a person requires employment in order to feed and house himself, it is said that the employer-employee relationship cannot be free and mutual, because the employer restricts the use of resources from the employee in such a way that he cannot meet his needs.

even if someone is in need of food and shelter they can go work for another employer if they feel theyre being mistreated. In a capitalist society there are many businesses. not just one, like in most socialist countries.

one thing you "communists" never seem to realize is that you do not have to work for someone else. you can sell anything, any service you can think of. some services dont require material property. so yes, theres room for every person to make it.

[QUOTE="X4D"][QUOTE="HJrAS_PT"]

I agree with the objectivist ethics regarding what type of government would be best, which says that the basic social principle of the objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force--i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others

Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use.H8sMikeMoore

But there are moral question with that. Capitalists believe that maintaining private property claims is always defensive so long as that property was obtained in a way they believe to be legitimate. Thus, so long as an employee and employer agree to terms, employment is regarded as free and mutual regardless of the circumstances of property restriction surrounding it. This ignores constraints on action due to both human and nonhuman factors, such as the need for food and shelter, and active restriction of both used and unused resources by those enforcing property claims.Thus, if a person requires employment in order to feed and house himself, it is said that the employer-employee relationship cannot be free and mutual, because the employer restricts the use of resources from the employee in such a way that he cannot meet his needs.

even if someone is in need of food and shelter they can go work for another employer if they feel theyre being mistreated. In a capitalist society there are many businesses. not just one, like in most socialist countries.

one thing you "communists" never seem to realize is that you do not have to work for someone else. you can sell anything, any service you can think of. some services dont require material property. so yes, theres room for every person to make it.

quite right, although i wouldn't go as fast as that to claim someone is a communist.

Sometimes it is the employers who are desperate in finding any men of ability that will work for them. Either way, both sides can only co-operate voluntarily, whether one is more desperate than the other or otherwise

Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, i.e.,to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force. Thus, I reject any form of collectivis, such as fascism or socialism. I also reject the current "mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth

Free market ftw !

HJrAS_PT

so...you oppose government regulation, yet you don't want people to be manipulated. not very likely to happen on its own.

Is government necessary? Could we not live without government?

I never completely bought the idea that government is necessary because humans are too selfish. If humans are too selfish then government is also going to be selfish, the difference is that government has authority and can abuse people. What i don't like about capitalist governments is that they protect the rich from the poor, giving them services, security and privileges and enforce the system of unjust wealth distribution. It's like a plutocracy, government run by the rich or for the rich.

X4D

Not forced government. Voluntary government is necessary to ensure rights, but in order to ensure those rights, it still must be voluntary.

[QUOTE="HJrAS_PT"]

Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, i.e.,to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force. Thus, I reject any form of collectivis, such as fascism or socialism. I also reject the current "mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth

Free market ftw !

Hewkii

so...you oppose government regulation, yet you don't want people to be manipulated. not very likely to happen on its own.

government regulation is what manipulates people, and the market, and redistribute wealth, which is simply preposterous, because they steal from people who have earned their money and give away to people who havent, but claim they need it. Kinda like Robin hood. what we need is a man who robs the poor and gives to the rich-or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich, not to be mistaken with the looting rich. Someone like Ragnar Danneskjol.

[

government regulation is what manipulates people, and the market, and redistribute wealth, which is simply preposterous, because they steal from people who have earned their money and give away to people who havent, but claim they need it. Kinda like Robin hood. what we need is a man who robs the poor and gives to the rich-or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich, not to be mistaken with the looting rich. Someone like Ragnar Danneskjol.

HJrAS_PT

the only fault in this logic is that eventually the people that "earned their money" have enough control over the market to prevent anyone else from getting in.

even if someone is in need of food and shelter they can go work for another employer if they feel theyre being mistreated. In a capitalist society there are many businesses. not just one, like in most socialist countries.

one thing you "communists" never seem to realize is that you do not have to work for someone else. you can sell anything, any service you can think of. some services dont require material property. so yes, theres room for every person to make it.

H8sMikeMoore

But being able to choose your master is not what true freedom is about. Freedom is more than the ability to choose your master. Also the employer-employee relationship is not voluntary because the workers do not own the means of production and the employer is also paid much more than his employees. In 2007, the CEOs of large U.S. companies were paid in one day what the average US worker makes in an entire year. With an average pay of $10.8 million annually, over 364 times the pay of the average American worker.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]even if someone is in need of food and shelter they can go work for another employer if they feel theyre being mistreated. In a capitalist society there are many businesses. not just one, like in most socialist countries. one thing you "communists" never seem to realize is that you do not have to work for someone else. you can sell anything, any service you can think of. some services dont require material property. so yes, theres room for every person to make it. X4D

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]even if someone is in need of food and shelter they can go work for another employer if they feel theyre being mistreated. In a capitalist society there are many businesses. not just one, like in most socialist countries.

one thing you "communists" never seem to realize is that you do not have to work for someone else. you can sell anything, any service you can think of. some services dont require material property. so yes, theres room for every person to make it.

X4D

But being able to choose your master is not what true freedom is about. Freedom is more than the ability to choose your master. Also the employer-employee relationship is not voluntary because the workers do not own the means of production and the employer is also paid much more than his employees. In 2007, the CEOs of large U.S. companies were paid in one day what the average US worker makes in an entire year. With an average pay of $10.8 million annually, over 364 times the pay of the average American worker.

would you pay someone more for what they do in their jobs? there's your answer.

[QUOTE="HJrAS_PT"][

government regulation is what manipulates people, and the market, and redistribute wealth, which is simply preposterous, because they steal from people who have earned their money and give away to people who havent, but claim they need it. Kinda like Robin hood. what we need is a man who robs the poor and gives to the rich-or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich, not to be mistaken with the looting rich. Someone like Ragnar Danneskjol.

Hewkii

the only fault in this logic is that eventually the people that "earned their money" have enough control over the market to prevent anyone else from getting in.

hmm, not many fan of monopoly business are you? even if their product is the best of the market: "oh no, poor other little businesses who cannot compete, and all because of the greedy monopolists who keep them all to themselves and are selfish and bla bla" hahaha. Anyone can compete if they can make the means of production cheaper, or/and providing a better product. However, the looting governments may prevent that from happening. that is why it is essential that productive businesses and looting businesses are clearly distinguished, because you wouldn't want the Prime Movers to go on STRIKE ;)

hmm, not many fan of monopoly business are you? even if their product is the best of the market: "oh no, poor other little businesses who cannot compete, and all because of the greedy monopolists who keep them all to themselves and are selfish and bla bla" hahaha. Anyone can compete if they can make the means of production cheaper, or/and providing a better product. However, the looting governments may prevent that from happening. that is why it is essential that productive businesses and looting businesses are clearly distinguished, because you wouldn't want the Prime Movers to go on STRIKE ;)

HJrAS_PT

New or smaller businesses, even if they have better products or services, do not have the economies of scale or resources to compete with the monopoly. Monopolies are bad for choice, price, and quality.

Do you really want anarchy? Do you really want to live somewhere with no actual punishment for any crime?

Yes. Government is necessary

[QUOTE="HJrAS_PT"]

hmm, not many fan of monopoly business are you? even if their product is the best of the market: "oh no, poor other little businesses who cannot compete, and all because of the greedy monopolists who keep them all to themselves and are selfish and bla bla" hahaha. Anyone can compete if they can make the means of production cheaper, or/and providing a better product. However, the looting governments may prevent that from happening. that is why it is essential that productive businesses and looting businesses are clearly distinguished, because you wouldn't want the Prime Movers to go on STRIKE ;)

Engrish_Major

New or smaller businesses, even if they have better products or services, do not have the economies of scale or resources to compete with the monopoly. Monopolies are bad for choice, price, and quality.

the only monopoly is a government enforced one, because the only way you can get a business to succeed is with voluntary trade or violence. So if you trade voluntarily and you are a monopoly, that's because everyone thinks you are the best person to buy from.

if smaller businesses had a better product, they would sell it. non violent monopoly is an ideal situation but in reality it is practically impossible for a voluntary monopoly to exist seeing as there are multiple people on earth and those people are good at different things.

just look at the PC world. they claim microsoft is a monopoly but who do they force to buy their products?

there is IE

and there is Firefox

and there is Safari

and Opera

there is windows

theres is linux

there is macs and etc.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="HJrAS_PT"]

hmm, not many fan of monopoly business are you? even if their product is the best of the market: "oh no, poor other little businesses who cannot compete, and all because of the greedy monopolists who keep them all to themselves and are selfish and bla bla" hahaha. Anyone can compete if they can make the means of production cheaper, or/and providing a better product. However, the looting governments may prevent that from happening. that is why it is essential that productive businesses and looting businesses are clearly distinguished, because you wouldn't want the Prime Movers to go on STRIKE ;)

HJrAS_PT

New or smaller businesses, even if they have better products or services, do not have the economies of scale or resources to compete with the monopoly. Monopolies are bad for choice, price, and quality.

the only monopoly is a government enforced one, because the only way you can get a business to succeed is with voluntary trade or violence. So if you trade voluntarily and you are a monopoly, that's because everyone thinks you are the best person to buy from.

if smaller businesses had a better product, they would sell it. non violent monopoly is an ideal situation but in reality it is practically impossible for a voluntary monopoly to exist seeing as there are multiple people on earth and those people are good at different things.

just look at the PC world. they claim microsoft is a monopoly but who do they force to buy their products?

there is IE

and there is Firefox

and there is Safari

and Opera

there is windows

theres is linux

there is macs and etc.

althought im primarily a linux user, i dont think theres adequate competition for MS on the OS level at this time. Microsoft definitely uses government services though. I know they get subsidies for selling their os to developing countries.

MS is on the way out though, from domination at least. with the rising popularity of open source (think firefox) linux is just a few steps away from becoming a good choice for the everyday user. really all linux(more specifically ubuntu) needs to do is make most hardware work out of the box, and have multimedia work a lot easier right from the get go. If i was a better programmer, I would make a program that does that for people but unfortuantely im not.

I hear Ubuntu 8.6 is supposed to take on some of these issues, and I think its going to get more and more popular.

and no, I dont consider mac os to be good competition. especially since you cant just buy the OS without the computer. Lamest decision ever.

slightly off topic i guess, but i think it can apply to what we were previously talking about,

Anyone can compete if they can make the means of production cheaper, or/and providing a better product.

HJrAS_PT

and if one should require substantial R&D to do so?

[QUOTE="HJrAS_PT"]

Anyone can compete if they can make the means of production cheaper, or/and providing a better product.

Hewkii

and if one should require substantial R&D to do so?

if they require R&D money they should make it themselves or find someone willing to fund them. Even though it is too hard for a small company to get money for R&D, that does not mean government should destroy monopolies. like i've said before:

"the only monopoly is a government enforced one, because the only way you can get a business to succeed is with voluntary trade or violence. So if you trade voluntarily and you are a monopoly, that's because everyone thinks you are the best person to buy from. if smaller businesses had a better product, they would sell it. non violent monopoly is an ideal situation but in reality it is practically impossible for a voluntary monopoly to exist seeing as there are multiple people on earth and those people are good at different things."

the only monopoly is a government enforced one, because the only way you can get a business to succeed is with voluntary trade or violence. So if you trade voluntarily and you are a monopoly, that's because everyone thinks you are the best person to buy from.

if smaller businesses had a better product, they would sell it. non violent monopoly is an ideal situation but in reality it is practically impossible for a voluntary monopoly to exist seeing as there are multiple people on earth and those people are good at different things.

just look at the PC world. they claim microsoft is a monopoly but who do they force to buy their products?

there is IE

and there is Firefox

and there is Safari

and Opera

there is windows

theres is linux

there is macs and etc.

HJrAS_PT

We don't have many true monopolies in this country because of government regulations enforced since after the industrial revolution. For the ones we do have, it is easy to point out how an outsider cannot enter the market. Think of your electricity or cable company. Another example might be Starbucks. They have the economy of scale to open stores in risky markets they are not in already, and can lose money for a while to test if the location should stay. A smaller, local business does not have that luxury, and might have to charge more for the same product just to stay afloat.

[QUOTE="HJrAS_PT"]

the only monopoly is a government enforced one, because the only way you can get a business to succeed is with voluntary trade or violence. So if you trade voluntarily and you are a monopoly, that's because everyone thinks you are the best person to buy from.

if smaller businesses had a better product, they would sell it. non violent monopoly is an ideal situation but in reality it is practically impossible for a voluntary monopoly to exist seeing as there are multiple people on earth and those people are good at different things.

just look at the PC world. they claim microsoft is a monopoly but who do they force to buy their products?

there is IE

and there is Firefox

and there is Safari

and Opera

there is windows

theres is linux

there is macs and etc.

Engrish_Major

We don't have many true monopolies in this country because of government regulations enforced since after the industrial revolution. For the ones we do have, it is easy to point out how an outsider cannot enter the market. Think of your electricity or cable company. Another example might be Starbucks. They have the economy of scale to open stores in risky markets they are not in already, and can lose money for a while to test if the location should stay. A smaller, local business does not have that luxury, and might have to charge more for the same product just to stay afloat.

Im not against the idea of having laws say no monopolies, but I think if it wasnt so expensive tax wise to get into business in the first place I think there would be a lot more competition. i mean, im sure you're not against the idea of someone just selling a product on a small business level without letting the government know about it right?

if someone wants to start a cable company in town a, town a shouldnt have to say its alright.

Im not against the idea of having laws say no monopolies, but I think if it wasnt so expensive tax wise to get into business in the first place I think there would be a lot more competition. i mean, im sure you're not against the idea of someone just selling a product on a small business level without letting the government know about it right?

if someone wants to start a cable company in town a, town a shouldnt have to say its alright.

H8sMikeMoore

I do not know much about business tax. However, I do think that a community should have a say about what businesses are run there. For instance, I applaud all communities that petition and keep WalMarts out. That is done in order to ensure that the small businesses stay open.

[QUOTE="HJrAS_PT"]

the only monopoly is a government enforced one, because the only way you can get a business to succeed is with voluntary trade or violence. So if you trade voluntarily and you are a monopoly, that's because everyone thinks you are the best person to buy from.

if smaller businesses had a better product, they would sell it. non violent monopoly is an ideal situation but in reality it is practically impossible for a voluntary monopoly to exist seeing as there are multiple people on earth and those people are good at different things.

just look at the PC world. they claim microsoft is a monopoly but who do they force to buy their products?

there is IE

and there is Firefox

and there is Safari

and Opera

there is windows

theres is linux

there is macs and etc.

Engrish_Major

We don't have many true monopolies in this country because of government regulations enforced since after the industrial revolution. For the ones we do have, it is easy to point out how an outsider cannot enter the market. Think of your electricity or cable company. Another example might be Starbucks. They have the economy of scale to open stores in risky markets they are not in already, and can lose money for a while to test if the location should stay. A smaller, local business does not have that luxury, and might have to charge more for the same product just to stay afloat.

Give me one example of a monopoly in a true free market. Perhaps you are not aware of allthe monopolies governments control. In Canada, i think, you can only get treated by the government, making private healthcare illegal. In many countries governments also have the complete monopoly on roads.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

Im not against the idea of having laws say no monopolies, but I think if it wasnt so expensive tax wise to get into business in the first place I think there would be a lot more competition. i mean, im sure you're not against the idea of someone just selling a product on a small business level without letting the government know about it right?

if someone wants to start a cable company in town a, town a shouldnt have to say its alright.

Engrish_Major

I do not know much about business tax. However, I do think that a community should have a say about what businesses are run there. For instance, I applaud all communities that petition and keep WalMarts out. That is done in order to ensure that the small businesses stay open.

I think in the case of walmart, its a pretty good example of corporatism. something im not in favor of.

I dont think walmart would exist in pure capitalism, infact many major corporations that everyone seems to hate would probably fall apart unless they didnt change it up big time.

the idea of removing competition for other business though is kind of monopolistic in theory though. if we cut a lot of the taxes thatactually give moeny to mega companies, and stop holding small business up to those same taxes i think we would see big changes.

I think if someone owns property then they can do whatever they want with it.

its weird though, before the civil war corporations werent like they are now i hear, they were temporary and meant for doing big projects.

Give me one example of a monopoly in a true free market. Perhaps you are not aware of allthe monopolies governments control. In Canada, i think, you can only get treated by the government, making private healthcare illegal. In many countries governments also have the complete monopoly on roads.

HJrAS_PT

Carnegie steel. Standard Oil. Like I said before, we don't have many examples like that anymore because of regulations created specifically to prevent these from happening.

what the hell kind of question is that? government is necessary. without a ruling body people descend into anarchy and it is pretty obvious that anarchy does not work. people should be able to control the government though. capitalism works. democracy works. communism does not work.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." - V

[QUOTE="HJrAS_PT"]

the only monopoly is a government enforced one, because the only way you can get a business to succeed is with voluntary trade or violence. So if you trade voluntarily and you are a monopoly, that's because everyone thinks you are the best person to buy from.

if smaller businesses had a better product, they would sell it. non violent monopoly is an ideal situation but in reality it is practically impossible for a voluntary monopoly to exist seeing as there are multiple people on earth and those people are good at different things.

just look at the PC world. they claim microsoft is a monopoly but who do they force to buy their products?

there is IE

and there is Firefox

and there is Safari

and Opera

there is windows

theres is linux

there is macs and etc.

Engrish_Major

We don't have many true monopolies in this country because of government regulations enforced since after the industrial revolution. For the ones we do have, it is easy to point out how an outsider cannot enter the market. Think of your electricity or cable company. Another example might be Starbucks. They have the economy of scale to open stores in risky markets they are not in already, and can lose money for a while to test if the location should stay. A smaller, local business does not have that luxury, and might have to charge more for the same product just to stay afloat.

Now you are just talking about big businesses..so i will too. My father owns an Ice Cream shop and we create our own ice cream. We started the first store in a city that already had a TCBY and a Baskin Robins and multiple places wher epeople can buy ice cream (walmart, meijer, k-mart, target, many local businesses). Once we started we put TCBY out of business and the baskin robins basically survives on the Dunkin Doughnuts combined with it.

Within that last couple of years a Cold Stone Creamery opened (you know...that multi-million dollar corporation [i think it is a corporation anyways]) with high prices and a great location (a strip mall right in the middle of the main shopping area in the city) and we have not seen any dip in sales at all...in fact our sales have been increasing since they opened. Not only have our sales been increasing but Cold Stone had to actually lower their prices (because not enough people were going there).

Here in my city i see a multi million dollar corporation competing with a multi hundred dollar business and the little guys are winning and the small business has cheaper prices. If we can do it then other small businesses can.

We would actually be making a lot more money if there was less government (or atleast less government regulation and taxes).

Do you really want anarchy? Do you really want to live somewhere with no actual punishment for any crime?

Yes. Government is necessary

BuryMe

The problem is that governments are constantly inventing new crimes and sometimes give large punishments for small crimes. The best way to reduce crime is not through punishment but through fighting poverty which is the real cause of crime.

Do you really want anarchy? Do you really want to live somewhere with no actual punishment for any crime?

Yes. Government is necessary

BuryMe

The problem is that governments are constantly inventing new crimes and sometimes give large punishments for small crimes. The best way to reduce crime is not through harsh punishment but through fighting poverty which is the real cause of crime. When everyone has what he needs (like in Canada for example where poverty rates are extremely low) there is much less crime.