I think Government should sell coastal ocean areas as real estate.
Or ocean is “sold” for something wind mills or oil mining and also
should be sold for low income housing.
Hrmm, that was pretty weak. Monopolies, oppressive or otherwise, aren’t that big a deal, if you have a mostly free market with low barrier to entry. The way too common problem is that you normally don’t have that and it’s not the fault of the libertarian when that happens. It’s not the fault of the market that you can deliberately break the market in a way that creates persistent monopolies.
The much bigger problem is human psychology. So many nutrition and diet fads, for example, start merely because someone moderately charismatic said something in an ad. There are so many people who will just follow someone because that person appears confident and cleans up nice.
For example, Putin wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the Ukraine, if Russian citizens were mostly skeptical libertarians. When most your population is gullible and/or unquestioningly follows leaders, then you have a lot more work ahead of you than merely regulation/bureaucracy removal.
I don’t think Russians are all that gullible or unquestioning. I’ve always gotten the sense they’re mostly just cynical about politics, more so than we Americans are.
Monopolies, oppressive or otherwise, aren’t that big a deal, if you have a mostly free market with low barrier to entry.
That’s nice
Now, where are the competitors to Twitter, Facebook, and Google, whose competition forces those companies not to screw over 50% of their potential market?
For that matter, where are the “libertarians” who support conservatives right to get in to the wedding business, but not do same sex “weddings”?
It’s sad how seldom “libertarian” ideology, as it’s currently practiced, conflicts with anything the Left wants
I’m unaware of any libertarians, scare quotes or otherwise, who thought that cake decorators should be compelled by the state to decorate cakes for gay weddings. Can you point any out?
Gary Johnson, in 2016, said almost exactly that.
No.
“In the case of the bakers, the bakers have to sell the cake but the baker doesn’t have to decorate the cake. That’s the First Amendment that comes to play. You don’t have to decorate the cake but you are in business so you got to sell that cake. And, if you want to deal with the bakers specifically, I will sign legislation that deals with the Nazi that wants to buy a cake from a Jewish cake baker and wants it decorated. I will sign legislation allowing for that discrimination to take place.”
Now, where are the competitors to Twitter, Facebook, and Google, whose competition forces those companies not to screw over 50% of their potential market?
For starters, these companies are competitors to each other. They all have different ways and interfaces by which they lure people into their social networks and related services, but it’s all the same, provide a service in order to advertise to the user.
They may or may not be monopolies, but the group of them definitely form a cartel that seems to always find a way to all used the same definitions of who can or cannot use their services. I would hope that the guys at the top are smart enough to realize that they should never put their collusion on paper or a server.
They are also rich enough to buy out any competitors, then quietly take the acquired company on that one-way trip to the vet.
but the group of them definitely form a cartel that seems to always find a way to all used the same definitions of who can or cannot use their services.
Yes and what are we gong to do about that cartel of store fronts with their “No loitering” and “No Shirt No Shoes and No Services”. They also find the same definitions of who can or can not user their services it’s a CARTEL, I tell you.
Social media rigged the last election through the use of censorship and taking over local election offices. So, the impacts on society are a big deal. We saw Libertarians rally around the cheaters and support the cheating rather than take the approach that human rights should be upheld by all and not just the state.
Personal responsibility went out the window along with any commitment to public service through living a moral life. Libertarian principles turned out to be whimsical daydreams that could take any form when manifested into reality, even totalitarianism.
Social media rigged the last election through the use of censorship and taking over local election offices.
Rigged?, What by hardening themselves so they weren’t used as a weapon again?
Try harder.
— We saw Libertarians rally around the cheaters and support the cheating rather than take the approach that human rights should be upheld by all and not just the state.–
There isn’t Libertarian party.
Should start one.
I think the goal of becoming a spacefaring civilization should
be the glue that holds the party together.
The right of people being able to leave a country- and a realistic
“borderless” Earth is related to become a spacefaring civilization.
Creating a Mars government on Earth, could be something to work on, at the present.
How is ten falcon 9 launches worse for the environment than one test launch of a Starship?
Is possible that problem with FAA, is due to SpaceX mismanaging this?
It seems SpaceX is good making rockets, but is good at dealing governmental agencies?
Allowing developers to build more will keep people stuck in apartments?
How’s that again?
I didn’t make it through round 6,748,923 of Strawman vs Scotsman yet, but was reminded of an odd mixture of leftism and libertarian commentary while commenting over at an insty post about rats in DC. It seems to be at least tangentially relevant to this article.
In Whitey On the Moon by Gil Scott-Heron, he makes an anti tax argument about the space program while reciting a poem that is a weird convolution of public housing costs, public sanitation, health care, race and government and who is responsible for what. I’ll call that episode 12×10^14 of “what’s one thing got to do with the other.”
Anything that’s peaceful (i.e., sans coercion).True when Leonard Read said it; true now..
I think Government should sell coastal ocean areas as real estate.
Or ocean is “sold” for something wind mills or oil mining and also
should be sold for low income housing.
Hrmm, that was pretty weak. Monopolies, oppressive or otherwise, aren’t that big a deal, if you have a mostly free market with low barrier to entry. The way too common problem is that you normally don’t have that and it’s not the fault of the libertarian when that happens. It’s not the fault of the market that you can deliberately break the market in a way that creates persistent monopolies.
The much bigger problem is human psychology. So many nutrition and diet fads, for example, start merely because someone moderately charismatic said something in an ad. There are so many people who will just follow someone because that person appears confident and cleans up nice.
For example, Putin wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the Ukraine, if Russian citizens were mostly skeptical libertarians. When most your population is gullible and/or unquestioningly follows leaders, then you have a lot more work ahead of you than merely regulation/bureaucracy removal.
I don’t think Russians are all that gullible or unquestioning. I’ve always gotten the sense they’re mostly just cynical about politics, more so than we Americans are.
Monopolies, oppressive or otherwise, aren’t that big a deal, if you have a mostly free market with low barrier to entry.
That’s nice
Now, where are the competitors to Twitter, Facebook, and Google, whose competition forces those companies not to screw over 50% of their potential market?
For that matter, where are the “libertarians” who support conservatives right to get in to the wedding business, but not do same sex “weddings”?
It’s sad how seldom “libertarian” ideology, as it’s currently practiced, conflicts with anything the Left wants
I’m unaware of any libertarians, scare quotes or otherwise, who thought that cake decorators should be compelled by the state to decorate cakes for gay weddings. Can you point any out?
Gary Johnson, in 2016, said almost exactly that.
No.
“In the case of the bakers, the bakers have to sell the cake but the baker doesn’t have to decorate the cake. That’s the First Amendment that comes to play. You don’t have to decorate the cake but you are in business so you got to sell that cake. And, if you want to deal with the bakers specifically, I will sign legislation that deals with the Nazi that wants to buy a cake from a Jewish cake baker and wants it decorated. I will sign legislation allowing for that discrimination to take place.”
Now, where are the competitors to Twitter, Facebook, and Google, whose competition forces those companies not to screw over 50% of their potential market?
For starters, these companies are competitors to each other. They all have different ways and interfaces by which they lure people into their social networks and related services, but it’s all the same, provide a service in order to advertise to the user.
They may or may not be monopolies, but the group of them definitely form a cartel that seems to always find a way to all used the same definitions of who can or cannot use their services. I would hope that the guys at the top are smart enough to realize that they should never put their collusion on paper or a server.
They are also rich enough to buy out any competitors, then quietly take the acquired company on that one-way trip to the vet.
Yes and what are we gong to do about that cartel of store fronts with their “No loitering” and “No Shirt No Shoes and No Services”. They also find the same definitions of who can or can not user their services it’s a CARTEL, I tell you.
Social media rigged the last election through the use of censorship and taking over local election offices. So, the impacts on society are a big deal. We saw Libertarians rally around the cheaters and support the cheating rather than take the approach that human rights should be upheld by all and not just the state.
Personal responsibility went out the window along with any commitment to public service through living a moral life. Libertarian principles turned out to be whimsical daydreams that could take any form when manifested into reality, even totalitarianism.
Rigged?, What by hardening themselves so they weren’t used as a weapon again?
Try harder.
— We saw Libertarians rally around the cheaters and support the cheating rather than take the approach that human rights should be upheld by all and not just the state.–
There isn’t Libertarian party.
Should start one.
I think the goal of becoming a spacefaring civilization should
be the glue that holds the party together.
The right of people being able to leave a country- and a realistic
“borderless” Earth is related to become a spacefaring civilization.
Creating a Mars government on Earth, could be something to work on, at the present.
How is ten falcon 9 launches worse for the environment than one test launch of a Starship?
Is possible that problem with FAA, is due to SpaceX mismanaging this?
It seems SpaceX is good making rockets, but is good at dealing governmental agencies?
Allowing developers to build more will keep people stuck in apartments?
How’s that again?
I didn’t make it through round 6,748,923 of Strawman vs Scotsman yet, but was reminded of an odd mixture of leftism and libertarian commentary while commenting over at an insty post about rats in DC. It seems to be at least tangentially relevant to this article.
In Whitey On the Moon by Gil Scott-Heron, he makes an anti tax argument about the space program while reciting a poem that is a weird convolution of public housing costs, public sanitation, health care, race and government and who is responsible for what. I’ll call that episode 12×10^14 of “what’s one thing got to do with the other.”
Anything that’s peaceful (i.e., sans coercion).True when Leonard Read said it; true now..