Spring 3L

ryken · 3 months

You stole this from TLS.

rubberstuntbaby · 3 months

A free-market has rules as well. What do you think contract law is?

rubberstuntbaby · 3 months

Cartels never last long, especially when there is free entry and exit into the market. Price-dumping is one of the most overblown myths of industrial organization and doesn't really happen to the extent people like to say that it does.

With capital formation abilities today, the pressures of competition make cartels and trusts an unsustainable framework for an industry. The idea that increased concentration in an industry is the natural result of a lack of regulation is completely unfounded by both economics and history.

In addition, your title makes no sense. The free market IS competition. State intervention destroys them both.

snarlsburg · 3 months

So workers should be insulated from the competition of others who can do the same work for less money? Entrepreneurs should be protected from others who can innovate and compete better? This is protectionist garbage.

And let's not forget the workers and entrepreneurs who are better off because of the increase in globalization, the better access to new markets and cheaper inputs. The idea that people are entitled to protection from economic change at the expense of all others is a huge bias that statists use to justify interfering and trying to control the economy.

snarlsburg · 3 months

The destruction of local businesses and the furtherance of globalization?

Is this a problem? If anything it's an amazingly good thing for consumers.

Also, nothing is guaranteed safe. You aren't guaranteed safety in real life so I don't see why you should expect it online.

Guns-Cats-andRonPaul · 3 months

I guess I didn't realize how much people will let their ideological concerns and biases drive their financial advice. This is kind of troubling.

peteftw · 3 months

I'm not talking so much about active government involvement but more in the form of government operated mechanisms and rules for things like property law that get around some of these issues of collective action. An example would be like the government changing certain rights from being operated under property rules to being operated under liability rules to solve the issues of things like huge private nuisance activities and hold out problems in development.

A lot of libertarians seem to find it objectionable the individual rights might in some situations may be overridden by utility concerns.

Guns-Cats-andRonPaul · 3 months

INB4 the gold bugs

Honestly, I don't think either of those ideas are very wise just from a financial planning perspective. A much, much more likely scenario then hyperinflation or mass rioting is much, much higher taxes. In my opinion, you should open up a Roth IRA through one of your average financial institutions like Vanguard or Edward Jones, and then put your money in a very safe fund like one that tracks US Bonds, commodity prices, or something very safe and secure.

With the Roth IRA then, you can draw out the money and you won't have to pay any taxes on it. It's important to realize that, despite how much we want it the other way, the likely future of taxes is that they will rise, not fall.

peteftw · 3 months

There are some problems I think libertarians need to think more about in terms of collective action problems and the role of transaction costs. There are some situations where the libertarian framework is not Pareto optimal.

fyl999 · 3 months

The fact that Ricardo's theory relies on the labor theory of value, something that doesn't work and has been completely replaced through a marginal theory of value put forth by Bohm-Bawerk, Menger, Jevons, and Walras should tell you that this theory makes no sense.

You can see examples of this in the criticisms of the labor theory of value which were mostly aimed at Marx, another proponent of the labor theory of value.

fyl999 · 3 months

The fact that their theory is based in Ricardo's Law of Rent, a wholly discredited and indefensible theory about the sources of production being based in land, is literally all I need to know to conclude that the philosophical underpinning of geolibertarianism are inherently flawed.

ItsLeeOwen · 3 months

There are a few libertarian frameworks that you can view this through.

First, obviously people wouldn't be having sex on other people's property if they didn't want to as then it would just be a standard trespass.

Second, to the extent that there is public property, there is an externalities argument that I think is pretty convincing to justify banning that kind of behavior. Specifically, since most people don't enjoy seeing others have sex, don't want their kids seeing it, and are generally made worse off, you won't be allowed to do it on public property just like you wouldn't be allowed to let out a bunch of noxious chemicals.

As for private property owned by the people having sex, a libertarian would say that you have to deal with that through private means but that it wouldn't be illegal. This is where things like covenants, private bargaining, etc. come in with property law.

Overall though, I think that there is a good argument to be made that just because something would become legal doesn't mean that everyone will start doing it. Just like if we made heroine legal people wouldn't all start doing it. My intuition is that the biggest barrier to people having sex in public isn't legal, but social, and that even if it were legal the social pressures and punishments for such activity would be much higher.

NewUploader1 · 3 months

Here are my answers: http://i.imgur.com/RRsKC.jpg?4966

NewUploader1 · 3 months

There are three ways to tell that this is a reasonably old picture. Can you see them? I'll probably come back and list the three I see.

OWHolmes · 3 months

http://i.imgur.com/1vSKs.jpg

This is the biggest version I could find. Let me keep looking...I have a ton of photos. It's around here somewhere.

OWHolmes · 3 months

Actually, the version I had does t have the impact text. And I think the bad resolution is from my resizing it.

OWHolmes · 3 months

I like to imagine Won't Get Fooled Again playing as he walks away.

Parkyparkranger · 3 months

Ask four libertarians about the proper role of government and and you'll get five opinions.

But in short, the federal government should be in charge of military, police, and courts. And local governments are largely disgusting pits of incumbent interest politics and sweet heart deals along with biased zoning.

magister0 · 3 months

"In the early 1950s, fully two fifths of American households had no automobile, about a third did not have a private telephone or a television, and the homes of about a third of all Americans were dilapidated or were without running water or a private toilet and bath. Only a small minority of families enjoyed such basics as a mixer or had a hot-water heater." -John Schwarz, Illusions of Opportunity

See also Myths of Rich and Poor to see how the average standard of living in the 1950's is much worse than the standard of living of those below the poverty line.

wrathofzenoise · 3 months

You can find some fiscal histories of the US if you're really interested. The Americans: An Economic Record comes to mind. You can also read up on the history of the 16th Amendment.

But generally, before the income tax the federal government relied much more heavily on things like tariffs, which I think we can all agree we don't exactly want back. I think any serious argument for the repeal of the income tax also has to include some kind of supplementation with a consumption tax.

OWHolmes

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login