Ron Paul's Constitutional Minarchism vs Murray Rothbard's Anarchist-Capitalism
Slavery = 100% Taxation
Corporatism = 80-90% Taxation
RP's Minarchism = 7-12% Taxation (eventually)
Anarcho-Capitalism = 0% Taxation
Taxation -- Direct (the tax you can see), Indirect (Inflationary), and Opportunity Losses (a "tax" put on the market when gov't decides the course against consumer-will)
Rothbard believes that every job being done by gov't could be handled in the private markets.
It would be easy to see how all education could be handled in the private market (we have universities that are basically doing it). We have Trade and Certificate Schools (that show how this can be done -- in private markets).
It's easy to see how all gov't admin positions could be privatized as well -- these jobs could be outsourced anywhere in the country (or world for that matter).
What jobs would we "fear" being in the private market -- CIA? Rothbard and Ron Paul want to get rid of the CIA. FBI? Both want to get rid of that too. In fact all three letter governmental offices are on the chopping block by Rothbard and Paul.
The difference then? Timing. Paul would get rid of these slowly, some quickly, some instantly, and some over time (Soc Sec & Welfare).
How about Military Oversight? This is where the road parts.
Rothbard says all security can be privatized -- in the long-run this might be true. All guard duties are privatized -- If you live in housing associations you can pay private security at a level you think covers police support (given that police arrive after the moment and private security will be nearby).
What about Search-Rescue-Fire-Health Emergency? Well, you could have insurance that covers hospital, ambulance, and fire. That's easy to see. However, Search and Rescue are fairly large and happen during disasters (but disasters are very very rare).
We saw how "gov't" handled Katrina and the collapsing bridges -- The "best" plan for 2,000,000 to be helped during a disaster is to train for it -- to practice -- and develop many strategies.
Disasters are too large for one firm even the national guard to handle -AND- obviously from the gov't side (during Katrina) they were not prepared (national guard to busy fighting wars) -- The latter can't happen in the private markets.
Disaster Preparedness Drills could be developed and provided by the private market.
So -- Police - Fire - Ambulance can be handled privately.
How about Military? The Soldiers -- surely only working for gov't are soldiers moral! Right?
I train military and law enforcement in defensive-tactics (hand-to-hand, knife, control tactics, command presence, and disarms). I'm a civilian-contractor. Privatized.
So, we now know that the training can be done in the private market.
What about the application (the day to day). Ron Paul's argument (in the short to medium run) is to push all gov't out to the state level save: Naval Oversight. I agree with Ron on this. If you sold all the military arsenal into the private market or just gave it to firms who are equipped to take it (Black Water) -- you would be putting it into the hands of the "de-throned" Fed Bankers or Big Welfare Corporatists. We should give them time to cool down (assuming we transitioned into Minarchism or Anarchist-Capitalism -- in either case they lose power).
Oversight could be handled by a one-term Meritocracy -- with no "corporatist" gov't authority. Hired by a revolving group of experts; no voting. Then everyone is taxed (forced) to pay a sales tax. A one-term "gov't" with no corporatist (economic-fascist) powers, is not really a "gov't" -- is it? It's a facade. It let's us think there's "good authority" watching over us -- but this "meritocracy" is coming straight out of the private sector. Everything you know about gov't is tenured-budgetary-careered.
Highways? Roads? Bridges?
Anarcho-Capitalism does not collect taxes -- There would need to be away to collect from people privately without it resulting in force to pay for highways-Roads-Bridges. Road Firms could charge insurance firms (then passed onto insurers), road firms could charge auto-manufacturers (wholesale) up-front, or road firms could provide insurance on their roads and include cost on per usuage.
So -- highways - roads - bridges could be privatized.
Anarchism means many things "Self-Rule" - "No-Authority" - "Voluntarism" - "Non-Force"
So -- Why is there bickering?
Rothbardian-Capitalism (Anarcho-Capitalism) is an immediate transition -- they are against Minarchism even though they love Ron Paul. Why? Because they are arguing a philosophy/education model on "how" things "could be" anarchistic (without gov't). Whereas, Ron Paul's Minarchism could actually lead there -- efficiency always improves in un-regulated markets (consumer-driven).
Minarchism must "eventually" lead to anarcho-capitalism. Because people are very clever on how to avoid taxation.
Gov'ts only role is to collect and distribute revenue -- the "evil" is that they are not altruistic Saints; which we know they have to be to never touch the money.
Conclusion -- Ron Paul Minarchist Transition into Rothbardian-Capitalism (Anarchist-Capitalism).
Octobox
These are not new questions.
Here are some resources:
Everyday Anarchy (gentle intro)
http://www.lulu.com/content/2488026
Practical Anarchy (more detailed)
http://www.lulu.com/content/2935951
The Market For Liberty (very comprehensive)
http://www.amazon.com//dp/B001DYM6V8/
http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/
Market Anarchy Explained: ''But Who Will Build The Roads?''
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1425769403/
For A New Liberty (Murray Rothbard's main an-cap tome)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0945466471/
And of course, the hundreds of videos and thousands of podcasts put out by Stefan Molyneux:
http://freedomainradio.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot
The whole distinction here is bullshit...
Ron Paul has never defended the State. NEVER.
He uses the Constitution as a rhetorical tool, in an age of manufactured consent. He said as much in this speech in Prague 06 before he ran.. or even knew about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55d6nAJoqlo&eu#t=6m45s (6min45secs - 9min01secs.)
"Don't STEAL, Government hates competition!" is on his desk..
In his Gold, Peace and Prosperity he has written about A FREE MARKET IN MONEY...!!!!
That is the anarcho-capitalist position! So get a grip.
Washington Warp: Why Even Good People in the Beltway Can't Think Straight by Jeffery Tucker (25min): ( http://mises.org/Community/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?I... )
"DC culture has the effect of turning people into secret anarchists or secret totalitarians."
I think it's clear which way Ron would lean. Don't you!?
Why hasn't he presented himself as an anarcho-capitalist? Because he's NOT AN IDIOT. I wouldn't want him to come out with it, if he was EITHER. If I was running for president and doing what he is doing, that would be the most stupid thing to do. Talk about imploding the revolution... people struggle to accept limited government... WTF they gonna do when you promote no govt? Jeezus... THINK.
WeAreChangeLA questions Ron Paul about the IMF as well as 9-11 Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88x6JdfjwCY
You could tell he was struggling to think of a way to get past answering.
There is another video out there where he is confronted by a guy with a camera, and gets asked about Lysander Spooner's No Constitution of No Authority.. Ron Paul takes the first question, but doesn't allow a follow up question - which was NEEDED to make this guys point.. lmao. Ron knew the argument. He was friends with Murray Rothbard for 30 years... what do you expect?
Keep filtering people into the Austrian School of Economics.. where they will become Anarcho-Capitalists naturally...
But seriously, this division is RETARDED. STFU seriously.
Do you have the video fo Paul asked about Spooner?
That'd be cool to see. Ron probably secretly wants to say that he agrees with it, but he can't because he knows it'd be political suicide, lol.
Didnt he say he wasnt in the
Didnt he say he wasnt in the habit of quoting Spooner in The Revolution?
Ventura 2012
Still trying to find it.
Still trying to find it. Randomly came across it 5 months ago somewhere, and the vid was on youtube.
Conza: Did you read my entire thread?
I agree with you -- that Ron Paul would lean towards Rothbardian Economics -- even as a Minarchist.
However, you are avoiding what he's written on the subject of Minarchism and his support and early influence by Ayn Rand's teachings -- who was a Minarchist.
Also, you are ignoring the steps Ron Paul has laid out to get us into a Minarchism (as a transition towards a fully anarchy).
The Rothbardians want a 100% and immediate severing from Corporatism -- philosophically speaking.
Before you start cursing at people "STFU" you should read what they have posted.
Here's what I said: "The difference [between Anarcho-Capitalism and RP Minarchism] then? Timing. Paul would get rid of these [branches of gov't]slowly, some quickly, some instantly, and some over [a longer period of]time (Soc Sec & Welfare)."
How in what I wrote [less of course you didn't read it all] do you find me anti-Rothbard?
This post was a follow-up on another post that was kicked around for awhile where I point out all the areas of gov't Ron Paul said he'd do away with first and made the argument RP is "nearly" 100% Rothbardian in the solutions he's providing for America -- American's have been abdicating their authority to Gov't for a very long time. For me RP's greatest contribution is the education he's providing. When American's understand the to the full extent what Individualism means then they will demand it -- even from a 7-12% Tax Minarchism; let alone from the 80-90% Tax Corporatism we have now.
My opining bit was pointing out the level of taxation under each system; leaving RP with an 88-93% Rothbardian (or Free-Market Anarchist) position.
I never have made the argument that RP was a Constitutional Absolutist (or any derivation thereof) so where did you get that anger from?
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
There is no "Rothbardian
There is no "Rothbardian Economics". He stands on the shoulders of giants. It is the Austrian School of Economics. The 'system' he built (philosophically) is based on praxeology in the Misesian tradition. Property links economics and ethics, that's the joiner.
I'm not avoiding any of Ron Paul's writings. And Ayn Rand is an objectivist. It is a closed system. Cult comes to mind. I'm not ignoring Ron's steps either. He is radical. He is for the abolishment of basically everything that intervenes in the market.
I've read everything there is from Rothbard and others when it comes to strategy. Ron Paul fits the bill and Rothbard approves. See: Preface of Ron's Gold, Peace and Prosperity.
Ron is essentially for the abolishment of everything, even succession - up to the point it is political viable. i.e The Constitution. He STOPS THERE. Why? BECAUSE HE IS NOT AN IDIOT. I would stop there as well. Talk about imploding the movement. If he is an ancap, I wouldn't want him to come out either... that would be the most retarded thing to do.
He has never defended the State. When presented with an anarcho-capitalist argument, he has never said - we need the State, or whatever. He has never said, no that is anarchy and associated it with chaos. He has never taken the position that the market has failed.
Furthermore, your no. %'s of so called Ron's "minarchism" are arbitrary!
Schmollerite.
Conza: Okay Mr. Semantical -- You just say stuff, hahaha.
Here is a Rothbardian Anarchist (or Anarcho-Capitalist) in support of Ron Paul (as am I) who also (like myself) understands RP's view on Minarchism (limited authority).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory153.html
"If Ron Paul were to actually win, he would indeed fail to smash the state entirely. That is neither his intention nor his promise. However, he would clearly move American society far closer toward the anarchist ideal." --Anthony Gregory
I thought you read everyone on or around this topic.
I'm going to go with this Economic Researcher / Austrian Scholar over any semantical debate or non-linked views.
I truly do not think we have much of a disagreement.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Lulz
That is all you've got? I go straight to the source... and so should you.
Ron Paul believes in Natural Rights and subsequently Natural law.
See: Mises and Austrian Economics: A personal view by Ron Paul
;) And the section devoted entirely to natural rights.
AGAIN, NO WHERE DOES HE DEFEND THE STATE?
Stop strawmanning him thanks. I understand Ron Paul as a secret ancap... you think his opinions stop where he states them publicly... I don't.
Which is retarded. See: the we are change interview on 9/11... (they are tools for posting it up btw...)
You quoted Anthony Gregory.. well I have Jeffery Tucker.. (lol)
He is playing the ROLE of Constitutionalist / limited government. Because any further is political suicide.. he can be as radical as all hell.
I will abolish the Federal Reserve. I will abolish the CIA. I will abolish the IRS. I will abolish the Dept of Education..
Masses: "KOOOK!"
Ron Paul: The Constitution doesn't authorize it...
Masses: "Zomg! He is right!"
lol.. again. If you want to filter people into anarcho-capitalism... this ain't the right way to go about it (Ron Paul vs Rothbard) No... NO.... NO! (facepalm)
Conza: I raise your Jeffrey Tucker and raise you Lew Rockwell
LOLz or LULz or Chucklez
Ron Paul says he's a Misesean Student a student of Austrian Economics -- He never has said that he was a student of Murray Rothbard; but this is not my point.
Right now it's "Me vs. You" -- But that doesn't me I dislike you, we are arguing semantics. Off this topic or on purely Anarcho-Capitalist arguments we'd probably find ourselves agreeing nearly 100%.
You are "part of" a transition towards An-Cap and Ron Paul is definitely "driving toward that goal." However, RP has written and been shown many times on video saying exactly what he'd cut and what he'd allow to stand.
THAT IS quoting the man directly whereas you are calling him a "secret" (as in no one but you and a few others know he's a) Anarcho-Capitalist.
There are links on Mises Institute website that put Rothbard vs Mises (even on Lew Rockwell that topic is covered) -- Rothbard and Mises argued over individual-sovereignty vs consumer-sovereignty and this philosophical issue alone pits the two philosophies at odds with each other; though there are many areas where they agree.
Can you list all the areas that Rothbard and Mises disagree (off the top of your head)?
I listed all the things Paul would abolish -- he said he will keep those dependent on welfare and social security on the doll. He's said this on television, on video, and in position papers. It's how he feels - that a transition is necessary. Stop calling him a "secret" An-Cap -- show me one paper where he even uses that phrase or extoling Rothbard over Mises (I'd like to read that).
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
"Can you list all the areas
"Can you list all the areas that Rothbard and Mises disagree (off the top of your head)?"
Yes. Foreign Policy. Monopoly. Utilitarianism vs Natural Law / Rights. Conscription.
WOW - what do you know, that is exactly what RON PAUL disagrees with Mises on!
There was a RON PAUL VS MISES... on Conscription and utilitarianism vs natural rights.
Ron Paul believes in Natural rights and natural law. Go see the book I already referred to, Mises and Austrian Economics a Personal view.
He also reads Rothbard (ala recent Economist interview)..
conza: You are stacking this argument
In my above thread I said, "[RP's] Minarchism must "eventually" lead to anarcho-capitalism. Because people are very clever on how to avoid taxation."
I'm not 'against' Rothbard and our "debate" seems to be putting me in that position.
What I'm arguing with you is your "assertion" that Ron Paul is not saying what he has been saying -- "that he'd transition from Corporatism to a Very Small Gov't Minarchism" -- based on everything he has written or said publically regarding what he'd cut and what he'd keep.
You argument is "he will cut everything and keep nothing because he doesn't argue against Rothbard on anything and he's a secret An-Cap."
#1 The President only has so many powers -- Ron Paul has acknowledged this when talking about what he'd cut during the debates and in various position papers.
#2 There's only your word that he's a "secret" Rothbardian, based on extrapolation -- which is fine if your opinion was the authority (the latter being laughable since you declare yourself an Anarcho-Capitalist).
Truthfully, I would probably not disagree with you on anything save arguing for views Ron Paul does not support in his position papers or video debates. There's just no need for it. I've already said, based on all Ron Paul's cuts there'd only be need for a 7-12% Sales Tax vs. the 80-90% Taxation (direct and indirect) we are paying now.
Rockwell is more Rothbardian then you are and he's 100% for a Ron Paul presidency.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Do You Really Want To Live in a World
of privately-owned, for-profit, Corporate Armies (not that what we have is a whole lot different- which is the crux of the problem)?
I can see it now: Rupert Murdoch's WarCorp! Peace (for a while) to the highest bidder. Maybe they'll sell franchises...
Or perhaps WalWar... Spend Less- Kill Better! or; "Where you get the biggest bang for your buck"!
WarCorp and "War Insurance"... now there's the perfect duo for pumping humanity dry.
Pay attention! That's what we have today.
Gee, you're the kind of person I reckon couldn't see the forest because of all those darned trees in the way.
Gary: What are you talking about -- "WarCorp?"
Walmart -- is a monopoly (created to supply products that are heavily subsidized by gov't) -- They seek tax-breaks, regulatory advantages, and fiat credit.
Huge coporations cannot exist in a free-market -- this is the problem with Daily Paul; people here do not understand free-market theory.
Monopolies in a free-society only exist in the short to medium run -- never the long run.
In a free-society the ONLY profit-bursts come from entre- or intra-preneurialism -- that's it.
So, investors and owners are looking to get in and get out -- the "long-run" (lower level profits) are made by those who have less assets to invest.
Only in a Corporatist Society can Monopolies exist in the long-run -- they must be regulated or subsidized into profitability.
Free-Society Revenue Stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase and 2) Consumers-who-Invest
Corporatist Society Revenue Stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Gov't Intervention (subsidies, regulatory advantages, tax breaks, bailouts, and fiat credit)
Meditate on it ;-)
There was a time when I didn't understand this and then that knowledge was given to me -- no loss of ego in learning, right? Smile.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I agree with you that
its silly for Anarcho-capitalists to hate on Minarchists-- if we were to become Anarcho-Capitalists surely we would have to go there by the road of Minarchism.
However you are wrong when you assert that:
they most certainly can. Any industry which is extremely costly to enter is 'Huge Corporation' friendly. Operating System Software for instance is extremely expensive to design, however once it has been created it can be reproduced on demand ad-infinitum for minimal costs the result: Once a corporation captures a significant portion of the market it has considerable staying power-- unless it abuses its customer base. Basically free-markets ensure no big-evil corporations-- big-good corporations will still exist.
Sea-stedding
Not in all instances. Patri Friedman is spear-heading a sea-stedding movement. Those sea-stedding communities could be created from the get go as anarcho-capitalist!
Agreed. I think the Sea-steadding projects are awesome...
and I'd sure as shit move out to a freshly founded libertarian colony.
But in general the focus of this site and these debates is how to reform and refine the American Political system. I don't see how we can get our country from point R to point A without going through point M.
Dlind: Our "disagreement" is only slight
You are correct that they can exist in the short-run.
Give me an example of a Free-Market Monopoly -- show me one case where it existed in the long-run.
You can't -- We've never had a "true" free-market.
Marx rightly coined the term "capitalism" as being Economic-Fuedalism -- We do not have "capitalism" now. According to Ron Paul we have Economic-Fascism or Corporatism.
So, you'd first have to show a period where free-markets reigned.
Now -- let's meditate on how a free-market functions.
#1 All Businesses are Driven 100% by Consumer-Will
#2 Profit-Bursts only happen during start-up or R&D innovation (entre-preneurialism and intra-preneurialism)
#3 The Wealthy only seek Profit-Bursts
#4 Zero Patent Laws - Zero Copyrights
#5 Can a businesses maintain enough profit-bursts to keep big investors occupied or do all purely competitive industries (in a purely competitive economy) with zero barriers to entry eventually reach break-even in the long-run?
There is a saying in free-market economics "...we are all dead in the long-run" -- including corporations.
Consumers are always looking for the best new thing.
Types of Consumers:
#1 Consumers-who-Purcahse
#2 Consumers-who-Invest
The above is also the revenue stream of a free-market business.
Corporatist business adds on to its "possible" sources of revenue "gov't intervention." For the express purpose of creating longevity in non-innovative industries/coporations.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Are you talking about a 100% Monopoly...
or simply an overwhelming percentage of the Market?
I agree that a 100% monopoly is not likely under any circumstances save Governmental decrees backed up by threats of violence (though even in those circumstances ye olde blackmarket will likely provide some alternatives to consumers).
I concur completely.
#1 Correct
#2 & #3 I don't under stand what you refer to as 'burst profits' (I assume you're just referring to periods that have the highest rate of return on investment capital) I'll agree that such 'burst profits' drive individuals to embark on all sorts of financial adventures, however if you factor risk into the equation I'd imagine the expected payout of investments made into already stable, or established but slightly distressed corporations is higher than capital expended on establishing new businesses. If you have some economic texts that provide more detailed information and evidence of your contention I'd be interested in reading them. Also I don't see why burst profits can't also be generated by external conditions-- Natural disasters, production drop off at competitors etc-- meaning it's intelligent to take a long position in industries that provide basic necessities.
#4 I've always been intrigued by the Patent debate but I've yet be sucked into that particular whirling maelstrom. I can easily see that a Zero Copyright society will emphasize production efficiency and result in the best consumer prices and I am well acquainted with the stupidity of our current system, however I am leery of abandoning the concept. What of Authors? Should others have the right to turn their works into movies without their consent, and never give them seeing a nickel in royalties? What about small time inventors (Granted we don't have many of them running about) but shouldn't they have some sort of protection? I personally think IP is extremely important to the functioning of a fair economic system. However I do believe that it ought to be reformed significantly.
#5
That depends on the business climate, and how well the company is run.
I don't see why all businesses have to 'break-even in the long run' unless your trying to say that eventually everyone goes bust and that really doesn't have any rammifications for investors. I mean really, how does the fact that, as time stretches to infinity the likelihood that a particular business will go bankrupt and die approaches one have any bearing on the investment decisions of any rational investor? You invest in something because you think it's well managed, affords you a reasonable rate of return on your investment, and (if you're sane) is stable. The fact that there might be dragons looming beyond the edge of the horizon should not affect your decision making process-- you always should deal with the facts you have at hand and nothing more.
Also, barriers to entry always exist-- the only thing anarchy does is remove artificial ones.
Agreed, however I believe that Consumers who Purchase, and Consumers who Invest are more than capable of supporting a large / huge corporation (Microsoft for example has never gone into debt and they're fairly big)-- Government Intervention's only help the poorly run ones no government intervention simply means no freeloader large corporations, not no large corporations at all.
I would also like to note that the limiting factor on business size is efficiency and with the advent of 'information technologies' the disadvantages traditionally associated with operating huge businesses over large geographical distances have been mitigated and in some cases eliminated. In short de jure Monopolies might not roam the earth in the post-Anarchistic-Revolution era, but you can bet your boots that McDonalds, Microsoft, and a few de facto Monopolies might still be running around.
Dlind: I'm referring to the "standard" definitions of a monopoly
Disjointed Explanation on why Monopolies cannot exist in the long-run in a free-market.
A "large company" must continuously innovate or cut costs to stay in business -- according to Walter Block (Mises Institute). A this tipping point investors must be well clear of a company (meaning its revenue is now from consumers-who-purchase). The large company would then break up into smaller companies until some tech - logistic evolution comes along.
Are there employees in a free-market or only sub-contractors? Meditate on this one because it further answers why monopolies cannot exist in the long-run. Think incentives and profit-bursts.
Natural Monopoly -- According to DiLorenzo: "Put simply, a natural monopoly is said to occur when production technology, such as relatively high fixed costs, causes long-run average total costs to decline as output expands. In such industries, the theory goes, a single producer will eventually be able to produce at a lower cost than any two other producers, thereby creating a "natural" monopoly. Higher prices will result if more than one producer supplies the market."
Read: Myth of Natural Monopoly by DiLorenzo (great little read)
Geographic Monopoly -- Railroads
Technological Monopoly -- Microsoft or IBM
Government Monopoly -- State and Central Authority (currency - energy)
Meditate on this (for the above to exist there needs to be):
#1 Eminent Domain - "Eminent domain is totally and completely inconsistent with free enterprise and libertarianism." -- Walter Block
-----http://mises.org/story/3431
#2 Intellectual Property - In a non-coercive voluntary society there simply are no means to persecute outside of non-contractual (voluntarily mediated) disputes -- think about it.
#3 Subsidized "sub-industries" (steel, oil, hydro-electrict, and coal) -- From Microsoft to AT&T name one monopoly that does not have some highly subsidized base unit of production and you will have found a "possible" monopoly situation in a free-market.
.......If we are to consider modern examples or even hypo-thetical ones
That should clear things up -- meditate on it.
The above (if you can make the intellectual leap) will allow you to see the "profit-burst" investor goods landscape.
Profit-Bursts are what all wealthy people are seeking -- what I'm saying is there are only two ways to get into these "logically" in a free-market: #1 Entrepreneurialism and #2 Intrapreneurialism -- natural disasters are the un-predictable "third way" but are few and far between.
Does "negative speculation" exist in a free-market? Are there stock markets?
These answers require prolonged meditation -- on the surface the answer seems simple.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
"Huge coporations cannot
"Huge coporations cannot exist in a free-market -- this is the problem with Daily Paul; people here do not understand free-market theory."
What free market theory are you referring too? I've never heard such a statement in my life.
Ventura 2012
BmoreBrawler: Let me specify
State-Monopolies cannot exist in a free-market.
and
Natural Monopolies will not last in the long-run in a free-market.
Does that make more sense now?
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Yes. I agree with that to a
Yes. I agree with that to a certain extent, although I think saying "will not" is unscientific. "Probably not" is probably better.
Ventura 2012
Okay -- "probably not"
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Natural Monopolies will not last in the long-run...
Unless entry costs into the industry are high enough, and they keep their profit margin low enough to make it foolish for others to attempt to enter the market. In which case, the consumers interests are being served.
As I've said before Free-Market economics does not preclude the creation of monopolies, it just keeps them from being evil and abusive.
;)
Dlind: Most Anarcho-Capitalist do not ascribe to "natural
monopolies."
You had asked before about Intellectual Property Rights (Patents and Copryrights). There are no coercive courts in Anarcho-Capitalist Society that can force IP protection.
The "courts" are all privatized in a free-market and can only "mediate" voluntarily and over contracts where leverageable assets have been offered up. Think of the guy who holds the bets during one-on-one basketball game -- he hands the winner his loot, based on assessment of goals and tactics (or whatever rules were established in advanced).
There's no way to create that contract over songs or books.
There are no confiscatory courts in a free-market.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Beesting: Ron Paul's favorite Founding Father was John Adams
and not Jefferson, smile.
So -- He would be an Adam's Constitutionalist -- however, RP's knowledge / kindness / wisdom go beyond Adams.
History will look back on Ron Paul as a "Founding Father" -- His debates, position papers, and videos will be training tools in all universities and institutions.
M.A
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
An excellent example of how you distort words, OctoBox.
I never said favorite founding father, this is what I said:
{snip} "In my humble opinion, Ron Paul is a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist !"
The reason I said this is because Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and helped with a lot more, including starting the Democratic//Republican party. Ron Paul seems to me to follow the writings of Jefferson more than any other founder.
Here is a link to Jefferson's writings:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtj...
{snip} "1784
March 1. Jefferson submits to Congress his Report of a Plan of Government for the Western Territory, establishing procedures for the entrance of new states. In it, Jefferson proposes that slavery be abolished in new states by 1800.
beesting
Beesting: You are a DramaQueen
I wasn't "attacking" you (in the first place).
You are an absolutist -- there is no air around you -- there's no room for "normal" discourse where mistakes are made.
Ron Paul is not a Jeffersonian -- Jefferson was pro-slavery (over 150 slaves) -- he had a bond-sex-slave in Sally Hemmings (he didn't give her her freedom), wow!!!
The delusion over Jefferson never ceases to amaze me in the "liberty" (meaning anti-slavery) world.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality