PDA

View Full Version : Would you vote for this candidate?




Brian4Liberty
09-17-2007, 09:37 PM
Here's a politician that addresses the issues of today: Immigration, opposing the President, corporate crime, the increasing power of the Oligarchy, the environment...

Would you vote for this candidate?

Quotes:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president"

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'"

"This country has nothing to fear from the crooked man who fails. We put him in jail. It is the crooked man who succeeds who is a threat to this country."

"Let individuals contribute as they desire; but let us prohibit in effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political purpose, directly or indirectly."

"The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others."

"Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country."

“We can have no "50-50" allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all.”

“The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight.”

"The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others."

"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them."

"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."

“A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues.”

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.

This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.

But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.

The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. "

paulpwns
09-17-2007, 09:39 PM
Who said this?

Ron Paul Fan
09-17-2007, 09:41 PM
Teddy Roosevelt

Original_Intent
09-17-2007, 09:42 PM
I think it was Teddy Roosevelt

RonPaulStreetTeam
09-17-2007, 09:42 PM
sounds like Fred Thompson or some other redneck

Brian4Liberty
09-17-2007, 09:46 PM
sounds like Fred Thompson or some other redneck

Fred Thompson would never say any of those things...He is a shill for the New World Order.

MicroBalrog
09-17-2007, 09:48 PM
This is meaningless.

I want to see a candidate's stance and record on the issues, not some witty comments he makes in interviews.

cjhowe
09-17-2007, 09:49 PM
I want to see how orange he is under camera lights.

Brian4Liberty
09-17-2007, 09:52 PM
I want to see how orange he is under camera lights.

lol...I don't! ;)

Brian4Liberty
09-18-2007, 08:23 AM
Yes, it was TR, not to be confused with FDR...

His record on the issues is available. "Trust busting" is something we cold use today. Isn't the health care problem related to Oligopolies driving prices up? The solution is true competitive markets with less pro-monopoly regulation, not Hillary-care.

Same goes for gasoline refining. The oil industry has colluded for decades to squeeze gasoline refining capacity so that they could control prices. There's no free and open competitive markets when it comes to refining.

How about banking? If they need deposits (liquidity), why not pay a higher rate to normal depositors? They have colluded to keep the interest they charge borrowers higher than it has to be, and the rates they pay to depositors low. If they paid 6% on a 2 year CD, they would get a flood of new money. (Countrywide paid 7.25% to the Bank of America for a cash infusion, but they didn't offer that rate to consumer depositors). They would rather play victim and look for a government bail-out. Or just declare bankruptcy and take their money and run. Their agreement to pay low rates can't be broken.

Free markets are meaningless without competition.

nexalacer
09-18-2007, 08:37 AM
Yes, it was TR, not to be confused with FDR...

His record on the issues is available. "Trust busting" is something we cold use today. Isn't the health care problem related to Oligopolies driving prices up? The solution is true competitive markets with less pro-monopoly regulation, not Hillary-care.

Same goes for gasoline refining. The oil industry has colluded for decades to squeeze gasoline refining capacity so that they could control prices. There's no free and open competitive markets when it comes to refining.

How about banking? If they need deposits (liquidity), why not pay a higher rate to normal depositors? They have colluded to keep the interest they charge borrowers higher than it has to be, and the rates they pay to depositors low. If they paid 6% on a 2 year CD, they would get a flood of new money. (Countrywide paid 7.25% to the Bank of America for a cash infusion, but they didn't offer that rate to consumer depositors). They would rather play victim and look for a government bail-out. Or just declare bankruptcy and take their money and run. Their agreement to pay low rates can't be broken.

Free markets are meaningless without competition.

Trust-busting is a fucking scam. The government gave power to the trusts, then told us how dangerous they were and asked for MORE power in order to "bust" them. And look how effective THAT has been! They've destroyed the railroad industry in America and most of us STILL fucking have AT&T!

Same with health care, same with the oil industry, same with banking! All of these industries have the power they have THANKS to government, not because of any "sin" of the free-market! A Free Market will always have competition, if it doesn't STOP calling it a free market because it is just a product of government intervention.

Roosevelt was a statist and a globalist. Fuck him.
Edit: Oh, and we can thank him for the bullshit Spanish-American war, which led to the American slaughter of millions of Filipinos as well as a century of animosity with one of our closest neighbors, Cuba. I repeat. Fuck Teddy Roosevelt... Fuck him right in the goat ass. And don't forget! Just because he's not FDR, doesn't mean he's not part of the same elitist family!

Brian4Liberty
09-18-2007, 09:20 PM
Trust-busting is a fucking scam. The government gave power to the trusts, then told us how dangerous they were and asked for MORE power in order to "bust" them.

Hmmm. The "trusts", aka Robber Barons took everything they could before there was any government regulation to help or hinder them. White-collar oligarchy crime runs rampant when there is nothing to constrain them. And yes, after the government started regulating them, it wasn't long before they turned that into their advantage too.


And look how effective THAT has been! They've destroyed the railroad industry in America and most of us STILL fucking have AT&T!

Exactly, AT&T is back. Since when though? Since the last several Presidents ignored anti-trust law, and removed banking regulation. And the "Activist" Federal courts have decided that there is no such thing as a "trust", "monopoly", or "oligopoly".


Same with health care, same with the oil industry, same with banking! All of these industries have the power they have THANKS to government, not because of any "sin" of the free-market!

Which is why I said in the previous post that we need less pro-monopoly, anti-competitive regulation. Competition is the key.


A Free Market will always have competition, if it doesn't STOP calling it a free market because it is just a product of government intervention.

Do we have a free market today then? Why is it almost unanimous that we have "free market capitalism" today, when we have so much pro-monopoly, anti-competitive government regulation? Could they all be lying to us? Maybe what we have is a military/industrial/congressional/media complex (an Oligarchy).

A competitive market is the best, there is no doubt. That is exactly what we must always strive for, and never forget. But a "free market" label alone does not guarantee competition. What does "free market" mean? Freedom for Oligarchs, Robber Barons, and the global elite to control everything? Freedom for corporate kings and dictators?


Roosevelt was a statist and a globalist. Fuck him.

Statist maybe. Wrong on globalist. Roosevelt was an American Nationalist. His Democrat opponent Woodrow Wilson was the Globalist.

As far as the empire building tendencies of TR, in HINDSITE, yes, that was a big mistake. Put yourself in that time...the Empires of Old Europe were surrounding us. There were compelling reasons to try to keep them from strangling us. Much more compelling than attacking Iraq. They were on our doorstep. Granted, it still ended up wrong though, and the results were a moral and human catastrophe, especially in the Philippines...


I repeat. Fuck Teddy Roosevelt... Fuck him right in the goat ass. And don't forget! Just because he's not FDR, doesn't mean he's not part of the same elitist family!

Ok, we all get your point. You hate Theodore Roosevelt. Which past President do you like?

FDR was a 5th cousin to TR. How much do you have politically and economically in common with your first cousins, let alone your 5th? Does the same last name mean complete agreement, no matter how distant a relative? TR was a Republican (and later, a Bull Moose). FDR was a Democrat.


The bottom line here is: beware, the Oligarchy can take advantage of too few laws just as well as they can take advantage of too much regulation (written by them, passed by their sponsored politicians).

Many of us hoped and waited for the libertarian revolution that Ronald Reagan represented. He battled the Republican establishment for years, and finally won. Since then, the "pro-business" agenda has been deviously used against us by the Oligarchy, through all of the Presidents since then (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, who had a whole different set of problems). All other aspects of libertarianism were dropped. The standard of living has dropped for us all and the income gap between the top and bottom has gone beyond the greediest dreams of any CEO. It was mostly accomplished via oppressive, monopoly-favoring regulation, the unlimited importation of cheaper labor, and a new morality that says that greed is good, and screw over everyone, including your own countrymen.

To be clear, this does not mean or imply that most CEOs or big businesses are corrupt or criminal. Quite the opposite. Just like most people don't engage in armed robbery, most CEOs are simply hard-working business people.

Once again, beware: your political beliefs can and will be used against you...

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

nexalacer
09-19-2007, 12:07 AM
Hmmm. The "trusts", aka Robber Barons took everything they could before there was any government regulation to help or hinder them. White-collar oligarchy crime runs rampant when there is nothing to constrain them. And yes, after the government started regulating them, it wasn't long before they turned that into their advantage too.

Common misconception about "the Robber Barons." First, we must realize this term was coined in a 1934 book... written at the height of anti-capitalist feeling, during the middle of the great depression that was supposedly caused by the "evils" of capitalism. Second, the men that were called "the Robber Barons" are victims of being grouped together, even though they were not necessarily the same type of capitalists. Some were "economic" or "free-market" capitalists, that is they created their wealth using real production, not theft. James J. Hill was an example of such an entreprenuer. The other group, used "political" means to do their business, that is they used their connections to get land deals and money from the government to make their wealth. Leland Stanford is one of the scum that fits in this group.

I suggest The Truth About the "Robber Barons" (http://www.mises.org/story/2317) for a good history lesson on these guys. Oh, and the article shows how your boy's, Roosevelt's, praised anti-trust regulation broke up Rockefeller's Standard Oil, which became the most successful oil company in America WITHOUT the help of the government. Rockefeller wasn't a saint though, he had his own part in the creation of the central bank, but unfortunately, the temptation of the abuse of government power is often strong, and true capitalists often get sucked into political entrepreneurship.


Exactly, AT&T is back. Since when though? Since the last several Presidents ignored anti-trust law, and removed banking regulation. And the "Activist" Federal courts have decided that there is no such thing as a "trust", "monopoly", or "oligopoly".

The point of mentioning AT&T shows that government regulations can be bought and paid for as all politicians are easily bought and paid for, thus regulation is highly irrelevant because it will work only for short periods of time, if at all. The other lesson to be learned from AT&T, however, is the same lesson to be learned from the current TV mess we're in: government should NEVER control infrastructure, because through the control, they create monopolies that are damaging to the consumer. If the US government had not stolen the telephone lines from the people in the FIRST place, we wouldn't be facing the problem of an AT&T monopoly today. "Trusts", "monopolies", and "oligopolies" are ALWAYS the product of institutionalized violence through the state.


Which is why I said in the previous post that we need less pro-monopoly, anti-competitive regulation. Competition is the key.

Here I agree completely. However, I infer from the rest of your posts and even this that you'd like "pro-competition" regulation. The problem here, again, is promoting the institutionalized violence of the state. I suggest NO regulation, government cannot make ANY laws referring to how the economy is run, and the companies that usually request government regulation (the inefficient companies that cost their customers and themselves too much money) will soon go under, and we will be left with efficient companies that lower prices as technology lowers costs. If a cartel tries to form, there will always be entrepreneurs who know they can bring the same good at a lower cost, and thus will compete with the cartel.

But beyond the efficiency argument, the key here is its the MORAL thing to do to remove government from economics. As government, by its NATURE, is organized and institutionalized violence, when we allow, even encourage, government interference in the economy, we are allowing and encouraging VIOLENCE in the economy. If you don't think it's moral to allow or encourage violence in your day-to-day life, why would you think it's ok for the government to do so in the economy?


Do we have a free market today then? Why is it almost unanimous that we have "free market capitalism" today, when we have so much pro-monopoly, anti-competitive government regulation? Could they all be lying to us? Maybe what we have is a military/industrial/congressional/media complex (an Oligarchy).

Unequivocally, NO, we don't have a free market today. The government is up to its eyeballs in the economy and various markets, thus we cannot say its free. And especially by being involved in the nervous system of the economy, the monetary system, it cannot be called free. It's unanimous that we have "free market capitalism" because it's convenient for politicians to use labels to fool the masses into believing lies are reality. As long as most of us THINK the free market requires government interference, the longer government can keep expanding its power by legislating MORE government interference.

Could they all be lying to us? YES! Follow THIS course of reasoning and you will find the truth!


A competitive market is the best, there is no doubt. That is exactly what we must always strive for, and never forget. But a "free market" label alone does not guarantee competition. What does "free market" mean? Freedom for Oligarchs, Robber Barons, and the global elite to control everything? Freedom for corporate kings and dictators?

A Free Market, quite simply, means a market or an economy completely devoid of legitimized violence. As long as the government legislates that one group is allowed to commit violence against another group, we will not live in a free market. The Oligarchs, Robber Barons, and the global elite would not have the power to control everything if WE would stop giving them the power by asking the government to protect us. And yes, by asking the government to protect us, we are encouraging our own oppression, whether by the so-called "capitalists" that abuse the system or by the kings and dictators that run the system.

And a system without legitimized violence absolutely guarantees competition. As long as there is no limit to market entrance or limit to how you run your business (within non-violent means), there will always be another entrepreneur who will think he can do better than the current businesses and breed competition.


Statist maybe. Wrong on globalist. Roosevelt was an American Nationalist. His Democrat opponent Woodrow Wilson was the Globalist.

As far as the empire building tendencies of TR, in HINDSITE, yes, that was a big mistake. Put yourself in that time...the Empires of Old Europe were surrounding us. There were compelling reasons to try to keep them from strangling us. Much more compelling than attacking Iraq. They were on our doorstep. Granted, it still ended up wrong though, and the results were a moral and human catastrophe, especially in the Philippines...

First of all, you contradict yourself, you say on one hand that he is an American Nationalist, and then in the next sentence, you say he was an Imperialist. In my eyes, doing what's best for America and building a global Empire are not compatible desires. You can disagree with me if you like of course, but as far as I can tell ensuring America's collapse through imperialist tendencies, that are continuing today, will surely lead to the fall of America.

Furthermore, yes, I can see from hindsight that he was an imperialist bastard. And I can also see that it was the trend at the time. That doesn't make it right! And the fact that old Europe was right on our doorstep led us to crush the Hawaiian Kingdom and slaughter Filipinos... who were THOUSANDS of miles away from Europe? I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic here. Now, if you're talking about invading Cuba to save it from European imperialistic tendencies, I would recommend Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, especially chapter 12, entitled, "The Empire and Its People", in order to inform you of how deceived you've been by our statist education system. It opens with an enlightening quote from ol' Teddy himself, stating, "In strict confidence... I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." Real American Nationalist right there.... I feel the love for his common American brother.


Ok, we all get your point. You hate Theodore Roosevelt. Which past President do you like?

If you had really gotten my point, you'd see that by despising one of the most revered presidents in American history, there really aren't a whole lot of presidents I DO like. They all used the state's institutionalized violence to oppress REAL people in different ways, although the first 2 or 3, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, were probably the LEAST guilty of this. Not that they are absolved of their abuses of state violence either, but their state was much smaller, and had little real power at the time. I think many of them had great qualities, but I am not willing to overlook their abuses for the sake of American Nationalist hero-worship. That's the thing with having a morality based on a real constant, the absolute condemnation of violence.... it makes it really easy to not fall into the type of hero-worship that creates totalitarian leaders, from the light side of FDR to the most brutal side of Hitler. In my eyes, they're all shit.


FDR was a 5th cousin to TR. How much do you have politically and economically in common with your first cousins, let alone your 5th? Does the same last name mean complete agreement, no matter how distant a relative? TR was a Republican (and later, a Bull Moose). FDR was a Democrat.

I don't really care if they agreed on the hows of politics. They were both part of the same wealthy family, and they both found a great good in the use of state violence to supposedly make the world a better place. And in that, I find them both despicable. Not to mention, they both were war mongers.... TR sold us the Spanish American War, and FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen to drag us into WW2. Are those respectable acts committed by respectable men? I say no.


The bottom line here is: beware, the Oligarchy can take advantage of too few laws just as well as they can take advantage of too much regulation (written by them, passed by their sponsored politicians).

Many of us hoped and waited for the libertarian revolution that Ronald Reagan represented. He battled the Republican establishment for years, and finally won. Since then, the "pro-business" agenda has been deviously used against us by the Oligarchy, through all of the Presidents since then (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, who had a whole different set of problems). All other aspects of libertarianism were dropped. The standard of living has dropped for us all and the income gap between the top and bottom has gone beyond the greediest dreams of any CEO. It was mostly accomplished via oppressive, monopoly-favoring regulation, the unlimited importation of cheaper labor, and a new morality that says that greed is good, and screw over everyone, including your own countrymen.

To be clear, this does not mean or imply that most CEOs or big businesses are corrupt or criminal. Quite the opposite. Just like most people don't engage in armed robbery, most CEOs are simply hard-working business people.

Once again, beware: your political beliefs can and will be used against you...

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

I agree, we have to be wary of all state expansions of power. But what I find funny about the hope of a return to "libertarian" values of with the presidency of Reagan is when has government EVER, in the history of the world, actually shrunk by its own accord? The silliness of a lot of libertarians is they still think this "state", whose entire purpose is organized and legitimized violence, can be used for good. Violence cannot be used for good as long as the ends don't justify the means, and in my sense of morality, they never can.

Oh, and I'm sure my political beliefs can and will be used against me... that's why upon my return to America I will be sure to provide for my own defense by owning a proper rifle and being able to shoot a tick off of a dog from 500 yards. My political beliefs are in opposition to EVERYONE who thinks that it's valid to use violence in order to pursue their own ends, whether personal violence, or impersonal (state) violence.

And I think Jefferson would change his tune if he lived today, seeing that even the great ideals that America was founded on could be so easily tossed aside in a mere 220 years:
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and the abandonment of state power to solve problems." - Thomas Jefferson (2007)

Brian4Liberty
09-19-2007, 09:02 AM
Here I agree completely. However, I infer from the rest of your posts and even this that you'd like "pro-competition" regulation.

Not regulation, but enforcement of laws against crime. Murder and robbery, white collar crime, and anti-competitive crimes should be prosecuted.

Once again, beware: the attempt at "deregulation" in the energy markets led to Enron. What they did was obvious, yet they weren't investigated till long afterwards. It's like allowing a burglar to go through an entire city, and not even starting to investigate him until he pawned all of the goods and declared bankruptcy.





As long as there is no limit to market entrance or limit to how you run your business (within non-violent means), there will always be another entrepreneur who will think he can do better than the current businesses and breed competition.

If I have a monopoly, and more money than I know what to do with, and you want to compete with me, I can:

a) Buy you out, close you down and eliminate competition (you would probably have a price, rather inexpensive too)
b) Take your business in a hostile takeover.
c) Put out the word publicly that your products are defective, etc.
d) Undercut you just long enough so that you can't even get started in the business.
e) Hire all of your staff away from you.
f) Purchase any and all raw materials or capital you might need at inflated prices, so can't get any.
g) all of the above.

No laws, regulations or government involved in any of that. I don't even have to buy any politicians. How do you compete with my monopoly?


First of all, you contradict yourself, you say on one hand that he is an American Nationalist, and then in the next sentence, you say he was an Imperialist. In my eyes, doing what's best for America and building a global Empire are not compatible desires.

Globalism and nationalism are opposites in today's terminology. Although most American globalists wrap themselves in an American flag, it would be more appropriate for them to be wrapped in the flag of the UN or some international trade organization.



And the fact that old Europe was right on our doorstep led us to crush the Hawaiian Kingdom and slaughter Filipinos... who were THOUSANDS of miles away from Europe? I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic here.

It's not my logic, it was their's. It was wrong, like I said. When one of the old empires planted a flag anywhere, whoever lived there already was screwed. Empires fought with each other, and whoever was in the way suffered. Obviously wrong and immoral.


...there really aren't a whole lot of presidents I DO like. ...that's why upon my return to America...


So basically you are an exiled anarchist?

In all seriousness, and applied as a gross generalization to people from any country, I have noticed over the years that the most radical and extreme are those who leave a country, yet still advocate from afar. Just an observation.

nexalacer
09-19-2007, 10:54 AM
Not regulation, but enforcement of laws against crime. Murder and robbery, white collar crime, and anti-competitive crimes should be prosecuted.

Once again, beware: the attempt at "deregulation" in the energy markets led to Enron. What they did was obvious, yet they weren't investigated till long afterwards. It's like allowing a burglar to go through an entire city, and not even starting to investigate him until he pawned all of the goods and declared bankruptcy.

Enforcement of laws against crime is an important step towards a free market. But, anti-competitive actions and "white collar" actions should not be crimes unless they involve theft or fraud. If a company makes a better widget than your company, is more efficient at it, and undercuts your prices by a lot, this is anti-competitive, but it should not be a crime. Be careful that you don't equate anti-competitive with criminal. Criminal actions should be restricted to violations of personal property ONLY. Basically, Theft, Murder, and Slavery. And yes, fraud is a part of theft.

You're again focusing on the immediates that our "now now now" media feeds you. The problem did come with deregulation, but it was a deregulation that didn't remove the government completely. Enron was still able to use it's considerable weight in Congress to lobby for the "kind" of deregulation that suited it. It wasn't true deregulation that allows for real competition.

Here's a number of articles if you're interested:
http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1066
http://www.mises.org/story/883
http://www.mises.org/story/872 <--- This one is a really good one
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul32.html <--- Good ol' Dr. Paul on top of it
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/hotseat.html <---Lew
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north91.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul12.html <--- the best Ron Paul article on the subject


If I have a monopoly, and more money than I know what to do with, and you want to compete with me, I can:

a) Buy you out, close you down and eliminate competition (you would probably have a price, rather inexpensive too)
b) Take your business in a hostile takeover.
c) Put out the word publicly that your products are defective, etc.
d) Undercut you just long enough so that you can't even get started in the business.
e) Hire all of your staff away from you.
f) Purchase any and all raw materials or capital you might need at inflated prices, so can't get any.
g) all of the above.

No laws, regulations or government involved in any of that. I don't even have to buy any politicians. How do you compete with my monopoly?

Before we get into this, I want to make clear, the ultimate goal of economics is to make the price as low as possible for the consumer. I mean, we as consumers want the lowest possible price, and government regulators always use rhetoric about regulating in the "best interests of the consumer" (though they often regulate in the best interests of the business!). With that in mind, let's look at your possibilities for monopoly:

a) Ok, first off, history has shown that buyout prices are not inexpensive. In fact, they are usually quite cost prohibitive, requiring massive loans to make them happen. Since the loans are liabilities, profits go down for a long period after a buyout, making it unprofitable, thus unlikely in a world where there are no government bailouts. But, ignoring that, assuming you're infinitely rich: You buy me out. Ok, I'm happy, you're happy. If you use this position to try to gain a monopoly on the market, another producer enters and undercuts your price because your price is inflated due to the monopoly you think you have. He gains more business and you're shown to be a shady businessman. People stop doing business with your company. Other option, you lower your price again, and once again we have the natural situation of competition in the free market.
b) First, see section A about buyouts. Second, do you know what this means? A hostile takeover is simply a bid for a takeover is rejected, yet still pursued by the bidder. If we enter friendly takeover terms, as in a), then you know more about my business because I will tell you the ins and outs in order for us both to be satisfied with our mutual deal. If you attempt a hostile takeover, I tell you nothing, making you rely only on outside information, thus making the takeover riskier and minimizing the loans that banks would be able to give you to make the takeover. If you want to use your own funds, good luck... it will be nice to see your personal risk bring no reward, as I take the secrets of my functioning business with me when I leave.
c) If they are defective, the market will be aware. If they aren't, the market will also be aware. Just because you say one thing doesn't mean it's true. And just because you're a wealthy businessman doesn't mean people will believe you. This is truly a ridiculous means of attempting a monopoly. I've yet to see this actually argued as a real case for the existence of monopoly, but if you've got a real life example, show me.
d) Undercutting? Seriously? How long are you willing to take a loss on your sales? I mean, you could undercut long enough to put ME out of business, but there are always new entrants waiting for an opening. As soon as you bring your prices back to normal, another competitor enters the fray. This continues until your stockholders have lost all faith in your ability to turn a profit and abandon you. Then lets see how long you can continue the undercutting scheme.
e) At the risk of driving your own business in the ground for having more staff than you can afford? And this doesn't even take into account loyalties, friendships, family, etc. that would not leave. Remember, to take my employees, you'd have to pay considerably more than I was, AND you'd have to continue paying them that unless you want to see them come back to me. We're not living in a Federal Reserve world here, where money is infinite, so you would break your business very quickly.
f) HA! If buying out my company or my staff is cost prohibitive, try buying out all the raw materials in the world! Come on, this is the biggest straw man ever for monopoly scare tactics.
g) no. Just no.

Look, I really suggest you do some reading on this stuff and stop spewing the anti-monopoly nonsense that the media and anti-capitalism socialists spew. If you really support Ron Paul, look into his core economic beliefs and you will understand a LOT more about all of this "free market" stuff. Check out mises.org. Seriously.

For a great anti-trust myth-busting article, check out:
http://www.mises.org/story/2694


So basically you are an exiled anarchist?

In all seriousness, and applied as a gross generalization to people from any country, I have noticed over the years that the most radical and extreme are those who leave a country, yet still advocate from afar. Just an observation.

Your observation is based on one sentence... and you're so off base, its silly. I wanted to travel and I wanted to improve my Japanese skills, so I got a job teaching English in Japan. I didn't get "exiled", I chose to get some international experience, see the world outside the box that we all fall into in our comfort zones, and get a chance to learn something new.

I used to think the government was good, just like most of the other government educated sheep. I got a little into libertarian ideas through Ayn Rand, but it didn't fit me so much. I found anarchistic ideas mostly through punk music and Noam Chomsky. But I thought as you did, capitalism is bad, the corporations are bad, and the state should help protect us. I couldn't stick to the libertarianism of Ayn Rand and I couldn't see the Anarchism of some punks and Chomsky actually working. The difference is now I actually have some substance behind my anarchism. It's anarchism based on a moral foundation that will not give legitimacy to violence of any kind, especially the biggest criminal in human history, the state. It is also based on an economic understanding that the free market is the most natural, efficient, and moral means of producing in a world of limited resources. And if you think this is advocating, talking to mostly like-minded individuals on a message board... I think you're misguided.

Brian4Liberty
09-20-2007, 01:14 AM
Enforcement of laws against crime is an important step towards a free market. But, anti-competitive actions and "white collar" actions should not be crimes unless they involve theft or fraud. If a company makes a better widget than your company, is more efficient at it, and undercuts your prices by a lot, this is anti-competitive, but it should not be a crime. Be careful that you don't equate anti-competitive with criminal. Criminal actions should be restricted to violations of personal property ONLY. Basically, Theft, Murder, and Slavery. And yes, fraud is a part of theft.

You're again focusing on the immediates that our "now now now" media feeds you. The problem did come with deregulation, but it was a deregulation that didn't remove the government completely. Enron was still able to use it's considerable weight in Congress to lobby for the "kind" of deregulation that suited it. It wasn't true deregulation that allows for real competition.

Here's a number of articles if you're interested:
http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1066
http://www.mises.org/story/883
http://www.mises.org/story/872 <--- This one is a really good one
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul32.html <--- Good ol' Dr. Paul on top of it
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/hotseat.html <---Lew
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north91.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul12.html <--- the best Ron Paul article on the subject



Before we get into this, I want to make clear, the ultimate goal of economics is to make the price as low as possible for the consumer. I mean, we as consumers want the lowest possible price, and government regulators always use rhetoric about regulating in the "best interests of the consumer" (though they often regulate in the best interests of the business!). With that in mind, let's look at your possibilities for monopoly:

a) Ok, first off, history has shown that buyout prices are not inexpensive. In fact, they are usually quite cost prohibitive, requiring massive loans to make them happen. Since the loans are liabilities, profits go down for a long period after a buyout, making it unprofitable, thus unlikely in a world where there are no government bailouts. But, ignoring that, assuming you're infinitely rich: You buy me out. Ok, I'm happy, you're happy. If you use this position to try to gain a monopoly on the market, another producer enters and undercuts your price because your price is inflated due to the monopoly you think you have. He gains more business and you're shown to be a shady businessman. People stop doing business with your company. Other option, you lower your price again, and once again we have the natural situation of competition in the free market.
b) First, see section A about buyouts. Second, do you know what this means? A hostile takeover is simply a bid for a takeover is rejected, yet still pursued by the bidder. If we enter friendly takeover terms, as in a), then you know more about my business because I will tell you the ins and outs in order for us both to be satisfied with our mutual deal. If you attempt a hostile takeover, I tell you nothing, making you rely only on outside information, thus making the takeover riskier and minimizing the loans that banks would be able to give you to make the takeover. If you want to use your own funds, good luck... it will be nice to see your personal risk bring no reward, as I take the secrets of my functioning business with me when I leave.
c) If they are defective, the market will be aware. If they aren't, the market will also be aware. Just because you say one thing doesn't mean it's true. And just because you're a wealthy businessman doesn't mean people will believe you. This is truly a ridiculous means of attempting a monopoly. I've yet to see this actually argued as a real case for the existence of monopoly, but if you've got a real life example, show me.
d) Undercutting? Seriously? How long are you willing to take a loss on your sales? I mean, you could undercut long enough to put ME out of business, but there are always new entrants waiting for an opening. As soon as you bring your prices back to normal, another competitor enters the fray. This continues until your stockholders have lost all faith in your ability to turn a profit and abandon you. Then lets see how long you can continue the undercutting scheme.
e) At the risk of driving your own business in the ground for having more staff than you can afford? And this doesn't even take into account loyalties, friendships, family, etc. that would not leave. Remember, to take my employees, you'd have to pay considerably more than I was, AND you'd have to continue paying them that unless you want to see them come back to me. We're not living in a Federal Reserve world here, where money is infinite, so you would break your business very quickly.
f) HA! If buying out my company or my staff is cost prohibitive, try buying out all the raw materials in the world! Come on, this is the biggest straw man ever for monopoly scare tactics.
g) no. Just no.

Look, I really suggest you do some reading on this stuff and stop spewing the anti-monopoly nonsense that the media and anti-capitalism socialists spew. If you really support Ron Paul, look into his core economic beliefs and you will understand a LOT more about all of this "free market" stuff. Check out mises.org. Seriously.

For a great anti-trust myth-busting article, check out:
http://www.mises.org/story/2694



Your observation is based on one sentence... and you're so off base, its silly. I wanted to travel and I wanted to improve my Japanese skills, so I got a job teaching English in Japan. I didn't get "exiled", I chose to get some international experience, see the world outside the box that we all fall into in our comfort zones, and get a chance to learn something new.

I used to think the government was good, just like most of the other government educated sheep. I got a little into libertarian ideas through Ayn Rand, but it didn't fit me so much. I found anarchistic ideas mostly through punk music and Noam Chomsky. But I thought as you did, capitalism is bad, the corporations are bad, and the state should help protect us. I couldn't stick to the libertarianism of Ayn Rand and I couldn't see the Anarchism of some punks and Chomsky actually working. The difference is now I actually have some substance behind my anarchism. It's anarchism based on a moral foundation that will not give legitimacy to violence of any kind, especially the biggest criminal in human history, the state. It is also based on an economic understanding that the free market is the most natural, efficient, and moral means of producing in a world of limited resources. And if you think this is advocating, talking to mostly like-minded individuals on a message board... I think you're misguided.

Let's quit splitting hairs here..We agree that:

- Ron Paul should get our votes.
- Almost every thing that Ron Paul writes is exactly correct.
- Minimal government is the best.
- Government interference in the economy is bad.
- Crime should be prosecuted.
- Violence is bad.
- Empire is bad.
- Competition is good.
- The media spews propaganda and twists every thing, including revising history.

We can argue the finer points of conservativism, libertarianism and markets, but it is useless...for us, and anyone else that reads this.

Let's agree to disagree on that.

ps. Not everything is directed at you personally. Especially if it is prefaced with "as a gross generalization". And if I say "your political beliefs can and will be used against you", I don't mean the Oligarchy is going to come after you personally. But they will use selected libertarian ideas and say "hey, we are just implementing some free-market ideas suggested by the libertarians. We brought in a ton of open-border, competitive-wage labor. We had to throw out all the rest of that freedom and liberty stuff. Sorry about screwing you over again, but that's the way the markets work. We did what you wanted." That's an indictment of the power brokers, not the free-market.

nexalacer
09-20-2007, 06:29 AM
Ok, I'm happy to quit if you're happy to quit.

But a couple of points:

1) I don't agree that minimal government is best.... I think NO government is best. It might be semantics, but it's an important distinction for me.
2) I chose to be so exacting on your points because you are, in general, libertarian, but you have some beliefs about economics, politics, governments, etc. that have been shaped by our government-controlled schools and our highly government-influenced society. I hoped to point these facts out to you in order to help you understand a more libertarian point a view. Of course, you are free to do as you will with the information, but I put it on the board not just for your sake personally, but for the sake of anyone willing to take the time to read it. This board is full of many non-libertarian thinkers, people who support Ron Paul because of the war or what-have-you, and I think it'd be best for us all if MORE people started down the libertarian path. Ron Paul is great, but he's not going to change the world. We have to all start applying libertarian morals to our lives every day in order to get out this cycle of people-sanctioned, government-driven destruction.