Topic: What is price fixing?
Anonymous A started this discussion 14 years ago #24,387
I dont really understand this concept.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #377,509
Enough sellers of something agree on a (minimum) price to sell it at, so consumers have no choice but to spend more money and the normal market forces of supply, demand, competition, etc., don't work the same anymore.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,511
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,512
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,513
@377,511 (A)
i guess the granting of monopolies could lead to higher prices.
and cigarettes are only as expensive as they are because of taxes.
cigarette companies would love to sell them for 2 bucks a pack.
i guess the granting of monopolies could lead to higher prices.
and cigarettes are only as expensive as they are because of taxes.
cigarette companies would love to sell them for 2 bucks a pack.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,515
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 27 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,516
Is there price fixing in a free market economy?
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,518
@previous (A)
> Enough sellers of something agree on a (minimum) price to sell it at, so consumers have no choice but to spend more money and the normal market forces of supply, demand, competition, etc., don't work the same anymore.
> Enough sellers of something agree on a (minimum) price to sell it at, so consumers have no choice but to spend more money and the normal market forces of supply, demand, competition, etc., don't work the same anymore.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 19 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,521
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,548
@377,509 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
> Enough sellers of something agree on a (minimum) price to sell it at, so consumers have no choice but to spend more money and the normal market forces of supply, demand, competition, etc., don't work the same anymore.
This is in complete concordance with the normal market forces of supply, demand, and competition. They work exactly the same in such a situation.
> Enough sellers of something agree on a (minimum) price to sell it at, so consumers have no choice but to spend more money and the normal market forces of supply, demand, competition, etc., don't work the same anymore.
This is in complete concordance with the normal market forces of supply, demand, and competition. They work exactly the same in such a situation.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,549
@377,511 (A)
Yes. There still are. The government sets minimum and maximum prices for a great variety of goods.
Yes. There still are. The government sets minimum and maximum prices for a great variety of goods.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos triple-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,550
@377,516 (A)
Yes, it is possible, but not likely. The incentive to break trust is very great, as a company who lowered or raised their prices could stand to capture the entire market.
Yes, it is possible, but not likely. The incentive to break trust is very great, as a company who lowered or raised their prices could stand to capture the entire market.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 33 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,554
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,562
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 29 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,582
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,584
@previous (F)
It would go horribly wrong. You've discovered why libertarianism must never be allowed to take root. It would cause artificial famines in the richest countries in the world.
It would go horribly wrong. You've discovered why libertarianism must never be allowed to take root. It would cause artificial famines in the richest countries in the world.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,587
@previous (G)
Let's have a quick look at history and see where artificial famines actually did occur... oh, yes, in socialist countries where the state ran the economy.
Let's have a quick look at history and see where artificial famines actually did occur... oh, yes, in socialist countries where the state ran the economy.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 18 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,588
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,590
@377,587 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
What is the difference between the state running an economy, and businessmen in towers running an economy?
What is the difference between the state running an economy, and businessmen in towers running an economy?
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,593
@377,588 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
So the options for the economy in a libertarian society are either to collapse or become monopolies?
So the options for the economy in a libertarian society are either to collapse or become monopolies?
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,599
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,618
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,621
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,664
@377,590 (G)
The state can force you to purchase a product, it can forbid products from being sold, it can ignore price signals by running enterprises at a loss and making it up via taxation.
The state can force you to purchase a product, it can forbid products from being sold, it can ignore price signals by running enterprises at a loss and making it up via taxation.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,665
@377,618 (doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ)
> implying "the people" picked Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Tito, etc.
> implying "the people" picked Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Tito, etc.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos triple-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,666
@377,599 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
Compelling argument. Laws of supply and demand don't just suddenly stop working.
Compelling argument. Laws of supply and demand don't just suddenly stop working.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos quadruple-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,667
@377,593 (F)
No, the options for colluding companies are to collapse the alliance or to not collapse the alliance.
No, the options for colluding companies are to collapse the alliance or to not collapse the alliance.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,673
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,682
@377,664 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> The state can force you to purchase a product
When the monopoly raises the minimum price on the product and you face the choice of paying more or not having access to the product at all, you can take heart; you were not forced to purchase the product.
Libertarianism is the gangster's utopia.
> The state can force you to purchase a product
When the monopoly raises the minimum price on the product and you face the choice of paying more or not having access to the product at all, you can take heart; you were not forced to purchase the product.
Libertarianism is the gangster's utopia.
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 31 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,684
@377,665 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
are you saying that every form of state is bad because a few of them have dictators?
are you saying that every form of state is bad because a few of them have dictators?
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,687
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,689
@377,682 (G)
You're making it sound as if libertarianism makes monopolies more likely, instead of less. Even the word monopoly used to apply solely to grants by the state. It wasn't applied to uncoercive monopolies until later. Regardless, collusion is unlikely to last in a free market.
The state is no different to a gang.
You're making it sound as if libertarianism makes monopolies more likely, instead of less. Even the word monopoly used to apply solely to grants by the state. It wasn't applied to uncoercive monopolies until later. Regardless, collusion is unlikely to last in a free market.
The state is no different to a gang.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos triple-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,690
@377,684 (doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ)
I'm saying you are misguided. You have little say in a democracy, and even less in other systems. But you vote for yourself with your wallet every time you buy something. You do choose in the market.
I'm saying you are misguided. You have little say in a democracy, and even less in other systems. But you vote for yourself with your wallet every time you buy something. You do choose in the market.
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 34 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,697
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,709
But couldnt all of the companies just agree to raise their prices?
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,718
@377,697 (doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ)
Except the state works by violence and theft i.e. gangster utopia
Except the state works by violence and theft i.e. gangster utopia
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,719
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,727
@377,718 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
you have said this fifty million times before can you not come up with anything new?
you have said this fifty million times before can you not come up with anything new?
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,728
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,730
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,731
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,732
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,734
@377,690 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> You have little say in a democracy, and even less in other systems. But you vote for yourself with your wallet every time you buy something. You do choose in the market.
This is funny because I was just reading a story about people trying to block Walmart from building in their area.
> You have little say in a democracy, and even less in other systems. But you vote for yourself with your wallet every time you buy something. You do choose in the market.
This is funny because I was just reading a story about people trying to block Walmart from building in their area.
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,735
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,739
@377,734 (J)
They are already voting and getting the benefits of their votes (spending). In a democracy it's all or nothing.
@previous (doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ)
Should be very easy for you to do so now, then.
They are already voting and getting the benefits of their votes (spending). In a democracy it's all or nothing.
@previous (doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ)
Should be very easy for you to do so now, then.
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,740
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
I'm sure depriving a nationwide chain like Walmart of a small amount of business will make them feel better about increased traffic, crime, transients, graffiti, litter, and their local businesses suffering.
I'm sure depriving a nationwide chain like Walmart of a small amount of business will make them feel better about increased traffic, crime, transients, graffiti, litter, and their local businesses suffering.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,746
@previous (J)
> I'm sure depriving a nationwide chain like Walmart of a small amount of business
Oh you mean the majority of the people in the area want a Walmart?
> I'm sure depriving a nationwide chain like Walmart of a small amount of business
Oh you mean the majority of the people in the area want a Walmart?
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,750
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,769
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,778
@377,689 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Regardless, collusion is unlikely to last in a free market.
Why is it unlikely to last in a free market? There are no antitrust laws to stop anti-competitive behavior.
> Regardless, collusion is unlikely to last in a free market.
Why is it unlikely to last in a free market? There are no antitrust laws to stop anti-competitive behavior.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 19 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,998
@377,750 (J)
Why would they open a store in a location with no customers???
@377,769 (doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ)
> thinking is hard!
@previous (G)
For the reasons I stated. Competition benefits individual firms, an incentive against anticompetitive collusion.
Why would they open a store in a location with no customers???
@377,769 (doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ)
> thinking is hard!
@previous (G)
For the reasons I stated. Competition benefits individual firms, an incentive against anticompetitive collusion.
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,004
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,017
@377,998 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> For the reasons I stated. Competition benefits individual firms, an incentive against anticompetitive collusion.
But if it does happen, Libertarianiam has no answer to it? That's pretty lame...
> For the reasons I stated. Competition benefits individual firms, an incentive against anticompetitive collusion.
But if it does happen, Libertarianiam has no answer to it? That's pretty lame...
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,022
@377,998 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Competition benefits individual firms, an incentive against anticompetitive collusion.
What a lame answer. If competition was so good and better than anticompetitive collusion, then nobody would ever attempt anticompetitive collusion even in today's world.
> Competition benefits individual firms, an incentive against anticompetitive collusion.
What a lame answer. If competition was so good and better than anticompetitive collusion, then nobody would ever attempt anticompetitive collusion even in today's world.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 42 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,037
@378,004 (doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ)
Weak.
@378,017 (F)
You can do anything you want short of violence. Start your own company and corner the entire market. Switch to an alternative product.
@previous (G)
You don't understand the issue. Collusion benefits the participants to a degree, but in such a situation, for one member to break the trust would provide benefits to itself, at the expense of the others, of a far higher degree.
Weak.
@378,017 (F)
You can do anything you want short of violence. Start your own company and corner the entire market. Switch to an alternative product.
@previous (G)
You don't understand the issue. Collusion benefits the participants to a degree, but in such a situation, for one member to break the trust would provide benefits to itself, at the expense of the others, of a far higher degree.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,040
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> You don't understand the issue. Collusion benefits the participants to a degree, but in such a situation, for one member to break the trust would provide benefits to itself, at the expense of the others, of a far higher degree.
I don't understand why you think "Companies can make monopolies and then will presumably backstab each other in order to maintain the free market" is better than "Government forbids companies from making monopolies".
> You don't understand the issue. Collusion benefits the participants to a degree, but in such a situation, for one member to break the trust would provide benefits to itself, at the expense of the others, of a far higher degree.
I don't understand why you think "Companies can make monopolies and then will presumably backstab each other in order to maintain the free market" is better than "Government forbids companies from making monopolies".
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,059
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,131
@378,037 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Yes, because it'd be so easy to start up a new business selling products in a vicious monopoly. You clown.
Give up, mountainman! Statism has the high ground!
Yes, because it'd be so easy to start up a new business selling products in a vicious monopoly. You clown.
Give up, mountainman! Statism has the high ground!
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 47 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,142
@378,040 (G)
Because the less violence, the better? Surely we agree on this principle?
@378,059 (A)
Autism.
@previous (F)
> vicious
dam lol. We're not talking about coercive monopolies (i.e. enforced and created by the state).
Because the less violence, the better? Surely we agree on this principle?
@378,059 (A)
Autism.
@previous (F)
> vicious
dam lol. We're not talking about coercive monopolies (i.e. enforced and created by the state).
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,153
@377,998 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Why would they open a store in a location with no customers???
The people living in the area don't want it. People passing through the area will happily shop there.
> Why would they open a store in a location with no customers???
The people living in the area don't want it. People passing through the area will happily shop there.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,154
@378,142 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
You didn't even try to refute my point. Thanks for playing. I'll accept your apology now.
You didn't even try to refute my point. Thanks for playing. I'll accept your apology now.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,156
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 52 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,194
@378,153 (J)
> the area
How far can we take this principle? Can it be limited, say, to just the street the store is on? To just the next door neighbors?
> the area
How far can we take this principle? Can it be limited, say, to just the street the store is on? To just the next door neighbors?
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,197
Mountainman, can I ask you a serious question?
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,221
@378,194 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
I think we're talking about people within a few miles of the site.
They're afraid the store will move in and undercut local businesses just long enough to shut down competition before raising prices. Walmart has done this many times before. It's funny because they turn to their elected representatives and city council knowing there is no way to compete economically.
I think we're talking about people within a few miles of the site.
They're afraid the store will move in and undercut local businesses just long enough to shut down competition before raising prices. Walmart has done this many times before. It's funny because they turn to their elected representatives and city council knowing there is no way to compete economically.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,273
@378,197 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
You just did.
@previous (J)
Why limit it to that? Why include all of that? Any such cut off would be completely arbitrary.
> raised prices
Sounds like a good market to enter!
You just did.
@previous (J)
Why limit it to that? Why include all of that? Any such cut off would be completely arbitrary.
> raised prices
Sounds like a good market to enter!
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,277
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,284
@378,142 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Because the less violence, the better? Surely we agree on this principle?
The recurring monopoly-backstab cycle would have an adverse effect on the people, especially in scenarios in which the monopoly is held by one corporation who has eliminated all other competition. That scenario would be like having the government, except if the government were more interested in making as much profit as possible than governing.
> Because the less violence, the better? Surely we agree on this principle?
The recurring monopoly-backstab cycle would have an adverse effect on the people, especially in scenarios in which the monopoly is held by one corporation who has eliminated all other competition. That scenario would be like having the government, except if the government were more interested in making as much profit as possible than governing.
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,290
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,293
@378,037 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
http://fightciv.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/a-critique-of-anarchism-and-its-effectiveness-as-a-strategy-to-bring-down-oppressive-power-systems/
http://www.enotes.com/anarchism-essays/anarchism
http://fightciv.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/a-critique-of-anarchism-and-its-effectiveness-as-a-strategy-to-bring-down-oppressive-power-systems/
http://www.enotes.com/anarchism-essays/anarchism
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,321
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,322
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,326
@378,284 (G)
> The recurring monopoly-backstab cycle would have an adverse effect on the people, especially in scenarios in which the monopoly is held by one corporation who has eliminated all other competition.
Compared to what? Institutionalized violence? The corruption and short-term prioritization of government officials?
> That scenario would be like having the government, except if the government were more interested in making as much profit as possible than governing.
Except it would be non-violent. Do you believe that initiating violence is morally wrong?
> The recurring monopoly-backstab cycle would have an adverse effect on the people, especially in scenarios in which the monopoly is held by one corporation who has eliminated all other competition.
Compared to what? Institutionalized violence? The corruption and short-term prioritization of government officials?
> That scenario would be like having the government, except if the government were more interested in making as much profit as possible than governing.
Except it would be non-violent. Do you believe that initiating violence is morally wrong?
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 24 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,327
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,374
@378,326 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Except it would be non-violent.
Which matters naught to a man whose family is starving to death because of the "non-violent" corporations denying him food at a price he can pay.
> Except it would be non-violent.
Which matters naught to a man whose family is starving to death because of the "non-violent" corporations denying him food at a price he can pay.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,413
@previous (G)
Food is probably the worst example you could have picked... pick something with huge capital costs, you know? Competition would spring up so easily. Plus, how are you going to get a monopoly of food? Buy every single piece of arable land in the world?
You never answered my question. Do you believe that initiating violence is morally wrong?
Food is probably the worst example you could have picked... pick something with huge capital costs, you know? Competition would spring up so easily. Plus, how are you going to get a monopoly of food? Buy every single piece of arable land in the world?
You never answered my question. Do you believe that initiating violence is morally wrong?
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,443
@378,321 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Thinking his inability to understand basic language means he found a critical flaw in something
> Thinking his inability to understand basic language means he found a critical flaw in something
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,464
@previous (J)
You are unable to define your terms. Your argument relies upon "fuzzy thinking", upon ignoring details. Instead of attempting to address this, your resort to ad hominem arguments. step up
You are unable to define your terms. Your argument relies upon "fuzzy thinking", upon ignoring details. Instead of attempting to address this, your resort to ad hominem arguments. step up
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,466
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 28 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,471
@378,464 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
see
@378,290 (doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ)
@378,321 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
see
@378,290 (doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ)
@378,321 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,482
@378,413 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Food is probably the worst example you could have picked... pick something with huge capital costs, you know? Competition would spring up so easily. Plus, how are you going to get a monopoly of food? Buy every single piece of arable land in the world?
You don't need to own the land if you control the supply. What you're doing is denying that monopolies exist, because if any of what you're saying was true it would not need a libertarian environment to happen, it would happen every single time now. And experience has proven that the only thing that can break monopolies and stop anti-competitive behavior is legislation against anti-competitive behavior.
I do not agree with your term "violence" and therefore any answer I can give to that yes/no question will not be an answer I would want to give.
> Food is probably the worst example you could have picked... pick something with huge capital costs, you know? Competition would spring up so easily. Plus, how are you going to get a monopoly of food? Buy every single piece of arable land in the world?
You don't need to own the land if you control the supply. What you're doing is denying that monopolies exist, because if any of what you're saying was true it would not need a libertarian environment to happen, it would happen every single time now. And experience has proven that the only thing that can break monopolies and stop anti-competitive behavior is legislation against anti-competitive behavior.
I do not agree with your term "violence" and therefore any answer I can give to that yes/no question will not be an answer I would want to give.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 24 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,488
@OP
99 cent songs that should be free or 1 cent.
$10 albums that only have one good song on them.
$40+ games.
There needs to be anti-trust regulation against monopolies and industries dominated by mostly large players that collaborate to abuse the consumer. These industries should be broken up and CEOs and policies put in place that will compete on price. These types of companies continuing to operate on ridiculous profit margins that could easily be slashed to compete on volume and pricing should have new management put in place. After many rounds of breaking up companies and regime changes, it will eventually create a market where companies actually try to compete with each-other on price. There should also be action to insure that the money is going to the artists and that artists aren't being taken advantage of by hegemonic companies that monopolized the opportunities for artists to make it.
99 cent songs that should be free or 1 cent.
$10 albums that only have one good song on them.
$40+ games.
There needs to be anti-trust regulation against monopolies and industries dominated by mostly large players that collaborate to abuse the consumer. These industries should be broken up and CEOs and policies put in place that will compete on price. These types of companies continuing to operate on ridiculous profit margins that could easily be slashed to compete on volume and pricing should have new management put in place. After many rounds of breaking up companies and regime changes, it will eventually create a market where companies actually try to compete with each-other on price. There should also be action to insure that the money is going to the artists and that artists aren't being taken advantage of by hegemonic companies that monopolized the opportunities for artists to make it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,513
Look at how dishonest MM acts when "debating". Is it because Ron Paul likes price fixing and he's the libertarian Jesus?
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,516
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,517
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,518
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,519
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,520
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,548
@378,466 (J)
Instead of answering my objection, you claimed that I, the arguer, have an "inability to understand basic language".
Instead of answering my objection, you claimed that I, the arguer, have an "inability to understand basic language".
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,550
@378,482 (G)
> You don't need to own the land if you control the supply.
How can you control the supply of food? Only if you pay a higher price than anyone else is willing to pay.
> What you're doing is denying that monopolies exist, because if any of what you're saying was true it would not need a libertarian environment to happen, it would happen every single time now. And experience has proven that the only thing that can break monopolies and stop anti-competitive behavior is legislation against anti-competitive behavior.
I don't deny that monopolies are possible, just that they are likely. Experience has proven nothing of the sort.
> I do not agree with your term "violence" and therefore any answer I can give to that yes/no question will not be an answer I would want to give.
Explain this.
> You don't need to own the land if you control the supply.
How can you control the supply of food? Only if you pay a higher price than anyone else is willing to pay.
> What you're doing is denying that monopolies exist, because if any of what you're saying was true it would not need a libertarian environment to happen, it would happen every single time now. And experience has proven that the only thing that can break monopolies and stop anti-competitive behavior is legislation against anti-competitive behavior.
I don't deny that monopolies are possible, just that they are likely. Experience has proven nothing of the sort.
> I do not agree with your term "violence" and therefore any answer I can give to that yes/no question will not be an answer I would want to give.
Explain this.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos triple-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,551
@378,513 (A)
No one "likes" price fixing. They just say it should be allowed, as it is nonviolent. I don't like drug use or prostitution, but I think they should be allowed.
No one "likes" price fixing. They just say it should be allowed, as it is nonviolent. I don't like drug use or prostitution, but I think they should be allowed.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos quadruple-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,552
@378,516 (F)
damlol you made me skim over this whole thread again to find your point that I missed but there wasn't one
damlol you made me skim over this whole thread again to find your point that I missed but there wasn't one
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,555
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
You didn't address the point in @378,131 (F) you just started rambling on about statism.
You didn't address the point in @378,131 (F) you just started rambling on about statism.
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 51 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,564
@378,548 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> confusing arguing about definitions for having a relevant position
> confusing criticism of conduct for criticism of argument
> thinking any perceived rudeness constitutes an ad hominem
> confusing arguing about definitions for having a relevant position
> confusing criticism of conduct for criticism of argument
> thinking any perceived rudeness constitutes an ad hominem
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 37 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,570
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,574
@378,564 (J)
> > confusing arguing about definitions for having a relevant position
If you can't define your position, you don't have one. You can't define your position.
> > confusing criticism of conduct for criticism of argument
???
> > thinking any perceived rudeness constitutes an ad hominem
No, I don't. Your only argument has been against my personal qualities. You haven't addressed the deficiencies in your argument at all.
> > confusing arguing about definitions for having a relevant position
If you can't define your position, you don't have one. You can't define your position.
> > confusing criticism of conduct for criticism of argument
???
> > thinking any perceived rudeness constitutes an ad hominem
No, I don't. Your only argument has been against my personal qualities. You haven't addressed the deficiencies in your argument at all.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,578
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 53 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,579
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,585
@378,574 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> still confusing citing of an example as an "argument"
> still quibbling over definitions
> still confusing citing of an example as an "argument"
> still quibbling over definitions
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,593
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,595
100 get
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,611
@378,585 (J)The example was your argument. If you picked a poor example, feel free to pick a different one, or emend this one to make sense.
Yep. Let's have an undefined argument. That will approach truth.