The Flaw in Libertarian Theology

Posted By on August 25, 2019


one of the most important things that i think that we can do as a nation as a people is a civil libertarian idea that that
companies will always operate in their own self-interest which will always be
the best thing for the public interest because they want people will love them
is nonsense it might work you know in in a in a
country that had five thousand people in it mean it’s just like karl marx is
communism when implemented works anika bullets with three other people i am rans libertarianism might work it’s out of three hundred people but both of these utopian ideals require perfect behavior on the part of people
and when people behave imperfectly so sip ethically when they can’t hide when
they can leave a naked when you go someplace else and not be known when
they could behave anonymously when they can win a twenty-hour conc end
by remote control cause things to happen they can live in one city and l you know
they can live off the new york and they can say to the yet but they are
fertilizer plant taxes and i have no idea who wants is for
alleged plan but for example you know the hypothetical they could sell i have money in nigeria
there are new and and forgive busted by the p_l_o_ beyond it does not find
started in business for making millions and what’s the big deal it’s like the bank srs you know look at how many hundreds of
billions of dollars arguably trillions of dollars in profits and and and and
what i think made you know with you’re hustling bad loans
and then turning those loans and the c_e_o_s and selling those c_e_o_s in than the intended that the whole you know carl levin use in the ass word
over and over and over again here is remember all that those rooney deals in
those kind of stuff these banks is new with the return and they knew that there might be since
it’s a divisive fines but a companies going to pay it just cause to doing
business will make more prop

Posted by Lewis Heart

This article has 100 comments

  1. This video should be titled, "The Flaw in Anarchy Theology," not the word Libertarian. Government is an absolutely essential component to protecting individual rights and property. When it assumes any responsibility beyond protecting individual rights and property it becomes what the Founders would call an "unjust government." Classical liberalism, or what is referred to as Libertarianism today, is what created the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Reply
  2. If you think corporations are accountable take a look at Exxon, BP, or Shell. They pay no US taxes. In fact we are paying them to destroy our planet. Look at the Pharmaceutical industry. They leave drugs on the market knowing they kill people because it costs them less to later pay a class action suit. Look at Monsanto and the harmful effects due to genetically altered food. Just a small sample of corporate greed and unacountability.

    Reply
  3. Really? When was the last time you voted a corporation out of business because it dumped a mess of toxic oil in your town?

    Reply
  4. What, and businesses ARE accountable? BP, Blackwater, Halliburton, Monstanto … Wall Street? When have THEY been held accountable? (Hello: "Too big to fail, too big to jail"?) There is no difference between them and government, because at this point they essentially ARE the government.

    Reply
  5. Both Anarchists and Libertarians support small government to little to no regulation. Except Libertarians think some how lawsuits are going to solve everything and prevent these companies from doing wrong. Except that hasn't stopped Massey energy. Lost their lawsuit, and still endangering their workers. And that doesn't even consider the cost to an individual trying to sue a corporation, appeal, after appeal. Both Libertarians and Anarchists believe in a fantasy.

    Reply
  6. Your right Thom. More gov't regulations is what we need. That would have stopped what happened to Mayflower, AZ Exxon oil spill. Should have had more regulators to tell Exxon that a 60 year old pipe line needed to be maintained/replaced.

    the problem isn't with Libertarian theology. The problem is with humans. Greedy humans, humans that don't care. humans that paid to be over looked so that didn't have to care. West Texas anyone?

    Reply
  7. I would love to live in a society where the people that run the business care about the people buying the goods. As a consumer I want to deal with people that care if their product meets my needs and is a fair value. I look for companies like this and deal as much as I can with small business.

    The corporations we have to day are about profit. We don't shut them down, we only fine them a fraction of their profits so they have no reason to not continue to do what they are doing.

    Reply
  8. Yes, Big Business is unaccountable in the crony capitalist system we have, and that's the direct result of giving the government such overarching power over everyone. In a freer market, Big Business would have to compete more directly with small business. They couldn't pay the government too cripple their small business competitors, which is what they do now.

    Reply
  9. In a libertarian free market, "corporations" wouldn't exist in the form they do now. They wouldn't have the artificial protections – so if a mess of toxic waste was dumped, the people responsible would end up in prison.

    Reply
  10. Calling it theology is an insult. It's a series of arguments. Saying that companies will always operate in the public's interest because they want the public to love them is a straw-man argument. The argument is that companies will seek to please consumers because it's in their interests.

    Reply
  11. Those companies kinda ARE part of the government now. But you have to understand that's it's the existence of the government that gives them their power. Without it they're just some companies that have to please their customers or die.

    Reply
  12. FYI: Obama just signed legislation that gives Monsanto immunity from lawsuit for any of its GMO products. I suppose this puts Monsanto right up there with God. You can't sue God, eh?

    Reply
  13. If there are enough companies doing similar things, it might work better. I.e., competition would be good. But I don't see much evidence of competition during these days of overwhelming monopolies and mergers.

    Reply
  14. It used to be like that a lot 50 or 60 years ago, when lots of small businesses were thriving in the US. Our small town had half a dozen grocery stores, three hardware stores, etc. Lots of farmers, lots of jobs. Now we have 1 grocery store, 1 hardware store. Big cities grow, rural areas lose population.

    Reply
  15. I'm not an anarcho-libertarian. Libertarians of my stripe believe in small government – especially on the federal level. It's called a sentinel duty government – they don't micromanage with a mountain of regulations. But when a company does damage or cheat, it's not just a matter of a fine, it's criminal charges and jail time. I should mention that you've probably confused libertarians with anachists.

    Reply
  16. The problem with that is that it is often impossible to prove fault AFTER a disaster has already occured..E.g. if a town's drinking supply is poisoned by local factories, this town now has to spend millions of dollars for scientific research and legal fees to sue these companies and try to prove causation between the high cancer rates in the town and the chemical being dumped. Instead we regulate ahead of time so that the drinking water never gets poisoned and a town never has to deal with this!

    Reply
  17. Libertarians believe in small government, not no government. Even with the monsterously large EPA we have now, those same sorts of contamination and offshore oil spills happen. Big Government actually makes those sort of spills and contamination more likely because of its cozy relationship with Big Business.

    Reply
  18. I was just pointing out why the mountains of regulations that you blasted earlier are necessary. In the 19th centry we had a VERY lax attitude towards regulating industry. This resulted in water supplies being tainted with heavy metals and chemicals, our hot dogs being composed of 5% rat meat and feces, alleged medical cures resulting in the deaths of millions etc..And it was more cost effective for industry to fight lawsuits than fix the problem! And cozy relationships between (contd)…

    Reply
  19. (contd)…industry and regulators IS NOT regulation…It is the result of regulation being picked apart piece by piece by libertarians and their corporate overlords so that companies can essentially regulate themselves…as they did in the 19th century!

    Reply
  20. No, the mountains of regulations are not necessary. The EPA did a good job in the beginning, and did manage to get our air and water cleaner. But nowadays, the EPA is literally destroying wealth – bankrupting businesses and individuals. It adds billions in compliance costs for a tiny fraction of a fraction decrease in pollutants. Watch some Stossel youtube videos on this topic or read his most recent book "No They Can't".

    Reply
  21. So your solution is to go back to the time before EPA regulation when it was playing russian roulette just drinking your town tap water? Weren't you just saying that the problem is the cozy relationship between regulators and the companies they are supposed to be regulating? Now you are saying that these regulations are a massive economic burden? And how about the Billions of wasted dollars spent cleaning up disasters, fighting the companies in court, and the lost productivity of those harmed?

    Reply
  22. I'm saying there's a reasonable amount of regulations. The reality right now is that there's an unreasonable amount of regulation and government, and it's crippling the economy. Scaling back on regulations and size of government is not the same as getting rid of it altogether. To be able to argue about this topic, it's important to have a good idea of what's actually happening on the ground, to learn the specifics. Stossels videos are a starting point.

    Reply
  23. I hate arbitrary phrases like "too much regulation"…they are meaningless. THe current level of regulation from the wide range of executive agencies wasn;t too crippling to alow one of the largest economic expansions in US history under Clinton…And then Clinton and Bush spend their presidencies overturning 7 decades of regulations and limitations on the practices of financial intermediaries and we got the slowest decade of growth in 50 years under Bush followed by a near financial meltdown!

    Reply
  24. Huh? You believe at some point the number of federal regulations decreased? Never happened. Federal regulations got piled on top on regulations. Rarely did anything get repealed (glass-steagall got repealed at the behest of the banksters). The pile of federal regulations is a heck of a lot taller than you are, and every year it gets taller. I can see where this is going – endless argument. I'm not willing to discuss govt regs with someone who hasn't bothered to look at the nuts and bolts.

    Reply
  25. I could rephrase the question: in your libertarian world, who would pay for law enforcement and how? Who would pay for environmental damage and how? Etc.

    Reply
  26. Winston Churchill once remarked something to the effect that democracy was the worst kind of government there was, except for every other kind.

    Reply
  27. You are very simple minded if you think deregulation of the banking and Bank Holding industries never occurred in the 90's and early 00's…From the IBBEA, to Gramm-Leach-Bliley, to the CFMA…"(glass-steagall got repealed at the behest of the banksters)." DUH! That is exactly what I am saying, corporate interest, in this case the banking industry, pushed through deregulation!! You are absolutely clueless if you don;t think that the largest financial deregulation in 60 years was inconsequential!

    Reply
  28. Federal regulations increase every single year and continue to do so. Even the banking industry, which had some regs repealed, hasn't been "deregulated" by any stretch of the imagination. The financial services industry has never had more regs. What's the point of debating you? Like i've said, you're unwilling to learn about what the govt actually does, the nuts and bolts, how piles of regs directly affect people and businesses. You just want to spew out partisan talking points.

    Reply
  29. "Federal regulations increase every single year and continue to do so. " How do I measure that exactly? LOL! Of ,course new regulations get written every year kiddo, THERE IS SSTILL NO DENYING THAT THE 90'S AND EARLY 00'S WERE TWO DECADES OF THE GREATEST FINANCIAL DEREGULATION IN OVER HALF A CENTURY! Look up the bills I mentioned, take a single macroeconomics class, then come talk to me! You are absolutely clueless kiddo

    Reply
  30. In 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. The General Accountability Office (GAO) reports that in the four fiscal years from 1996 to 1999, a total of 15,286 new federal regulations went into effect. Of these, 222 were classified as "major" rules, each one having an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million. <<< Deregulation?

    Reply
  31. Hey pal, what you were referring to is common knowledge and irrelevant. You don't understand or even care to understand the point of most federal regulations. Most of those regulations are at the behest of the Big Boys – banksters and multinationals. The banking deregulations you're talking were major changes that sowed the seeds for the meltdown, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that even more regs were piled on – to cripple the small fish. You know nothing, you're just a partisan snipe.

    Reply
  32. You gotta love the clueless bandwaggon libertarian 🙂 First you anarcho capitalists dilute all regulation by making regulators powerless allowing companies to essentially sef regulate. Then you bitch that there is a cozy relationship between regulators and the companies they regulate! I have a BS in economics..what is your qualification to pull rank on me??? Regurgitating a youtbe video you don't even understand? Run along little boy 🙂

    Reply
  33. Wait how does a libertarian society require perfect behavior? Why do all leftists like Thom want utopia or nothing at all. As if one person cant afford healthcare then all of sudden libertarianism doesnt work. Libertarians dont promise a perfect world, we promise that you will get what you earn. I dont know any other system more fair than that.

    Reply
  34. You're rite, you have a BS in BS. You're a pointless pest that just lives to argue. You don't know anything about anything, and you live to annoy the adults in the room. You've succeeded. Now give your propeller cap a good spin, jump off a tall building, and annoy someone else.

    Reply
  35. You mean I can't speak with the fucktard who think the 90's and 00's were characterized by a massive expansion in financial regulation?! Oh no! LOL run along little boy, it is way past your bed time…

    Reply
  36. I was pointing out your argument is bullshit. Where did you get the idea anyone who doesn't agree with you wants noutopia at all? It's a nice idea but entirely unrealistic. But a libertarian utopia??? Every example we see has normal citizens like you or me being treated as slave labor for the wealthy.

    Reply
  37. Yeah, the flaw is simple to see…when markets, or anything for that matter, operate "freely" and the inevitable happens, ie. the unbridled greed and avarice of people is allowed to reach the point of self destruction…those very people who want freedom, beg for intervention. Like after Hurricane Sandy, or the Banking Collapse. This is the ruse, we never catch onto. Probably never will!

    Reply
  38. My argument was bullshit or it was wrong? If it was wrong then correct it. Simply calling it bullshit does nothing for me. Libertarianism stems from the principles of liberty, so I dont see how it would make people slaves. It would do the opposite in fact. Libertarianism rejects dependency and promotes direct public action, the complete opposites of a private wealthy tyranny over the people.

    Reply
  39. You say you're against these things yet go and support the people who are doing them by giving them more power to do as they please. Before the EPA was established for example the Cayohoga River caught fire 13 fucking times because businesses dumped chemicals and other crap into it because it was cheaper to do so. The state and the whole country at the time had state run versions of the EPA at the time, but they lacked the power to challenge the criminals in court because of it.

    Reply
  40. Congress had to step in and enforce action because people were getting sick and the constant fires in the river sent alarms across the country. I was arguing with a libertarian on this matter and after examining the details he had to agree that the people responsible had to be held accountable and that the government had the right to do so because the state boards couldn't manage it on their own due to the power of the wealthy elite.

    Reply
  41. Now if memory serves you wanna stick it to both corrupt politicians and the corporate overlords, yet you're arguing for a system which will enable them to further violate our rights. Libertarianism today means nothing to what it once ment, Noam Chomsky explains it best, but my point is that the libertarian party like the GOP has become fascist and yet you can't see it. Your party is overrun by crazy old white men, neo-nazis, neo-confederates, and some of the most bat-shit insane folks ever.

    Reply
  42. What libertarian says that businesses will always do what is right? Most libertarians are such precisely because they don't trust businesses to do what is right and therefore don't want to make available to them the legitimized monopoly of violence that is the state to be captured for their rent seeking activities. Better to know what you're talking about before you criticize it.

    Reply
  43. Anyone who has to call someone batshit insane folks obviously cant argue the issues. That is a deflective tactic used by immature people. You dont understand libertarians so you call us nazis, crazy white men, and confederates. Libertarians tend to support state rights, so if that makes them confederate, then so be it. You use that word as an insult, which shows where you are coming from. If a river is on fire and people get sick, then those affected should deal with it locally.

    Reply
  44. The ignorant of a society will always be taken advantage of, either by other people or by corporations, or by govt. Pick one. People on your side of the fence always act as if libertarians are anarchists. Nobody is saying remove govt. I would not have an issue if a state has their own EPA, I probably wouldnt live there but each state has that right. Am I a neo-confederate for supporting stronger state govts? If you keep equating libertarianism to private tyranny then we are done here.

    Reply
  45. I wouldn't call you that if you'd stop idolizing politicians who ARE nazis, confederates, and crazy white men. You can easilly be a libertarian without having to hold lunatics like Ron Paul, his son, Alex Jones, and others in such high regard. Ron Paul is a neo-confederate, Alex Jones is a psychopath, Rand Paul is a fascist, and so on and so on and so on. Support of people like them makes the whole libertarian party look horrible.

    Reply
  46. Ok at least you're not to the point where you would think governments should be abolished, I'll take it back since I needed to get that known first. However, there's a number of issues attrributed to the points in this post that I'll have to break down so they're easy to understand.

    Reply
  47. First, I already explained the reasons why we no longer have state versions of the EPA, they lack the needed power to challenge companies that do us harm by poisoning the enviornment. I preffer having clean water thank you and that right is slowly being eroded by the corporations that buy out every politician, and that includes libertarian ones too. It requires congress to change the focus of the EPA's function.

    Reply
  48. States rights are only valid if 1) They don't already apply on a federal level (such as immigration policy) and 2) only (emphasis on ONLY) if the rights of the states don't infringe on the rights of individuals as per the equal protection clause. Slavery and jim crow were cosnidered states rights, and it took the 14th amendment to undo both. the equal protection clause basically prevents blatant abuse of the powers of the 10th amendment.

    Reply
  49. How are governments unaccountable? That's the whole point of Democracy. To make government accountable to the people.

    Reply
  50. Lets see hom great the US is without enrgy, with lower food production, and fewer drugs to help people. What a fucking idiot.

    Reply
  51. In a Libertarian world, govt is created to protect our natural rights. Police, laws, courts, penal systems, military, civil law all needed to do so. We do not need govt to give out food stamps.

    Reply
  52. First, I would recognize the role of Govt in the destruction of the American family. Welfare State has made it acceptable, to abandon your family, or to run off the man because it isnt convenient. Nobody is going to starve, no need to worry about your own kids, and staying together. Govt will do it. so< i 1st would begin dismantling the welfare state, destroying families. 2nd, the role of public schoold in eroding morals. 3rd, I would support charity. You, would steal from others

    Reply
  53. So, you figure that redesigning the system is going to solve the problem of kids not having proper nutrition. Sorry but we already know American kids are at a disadvantage just compared with Canadians. Canadians have a 3 yr longer life expectancy already. Better health outcomes goes with higher intelligence, made possible by better nutrition. You can't starve an economy back to health. Likewise you can't expect kids to compete gradewise if their nutrition is off.

    Reply
  54. I simply think the govt has no role in creating incentives, for the destruction of families. It does, its policy. The results are negative. Seems stupid, for Govt to wreck families, then Govt tries to support them. How about just staying out in the first place? Years ago, seniors lived in same homes with their kids, and grandkids. No Social Security. Families took care of their old. Now, they die alone, or in "assisted living homes", How moral! How wonderful. Old folks HATE being in families.

    Reply
  55. Exxon Mobil pays over 40% of its world wide revenue in taxes, you stupid dolt. Look up an income statement.

    Reply
  56. 1st..you come on a post like this and bait ppl with views that contradict your own, call yourself luvcheney1 and try to make intelligent arguments. Let's make this simple for you, go find a sharp stick and poke yourself in the eye with it. Everyone is happy.
    >
    Decide whether we have a representative gov. If you say it isn't, then you can hardly blame "the people" for that. If you say it is, then this 'intervention' you bemoan, is a product of the people reigning in their own corruption! Idiot.

    Reply
  57. See, this is the problem with nim-rods like you. You make reference to "the people" as a singular enity when it makes your argument and as individuals when it doesn't. You obfuscate a discussion with these petty tactics because you can't argue issues.

    Reply
  58. Big whoop. Our Constitution defines what govt can do, and what it cant. Majority vote, by "people" cant do things outside the framework, without a fucking Amendment. Which is hard.

    Reply
  59. The Constitution followed our "Government". It didn't precede it. Yes, an Amendment is "hard", but it is "hard" for a reason. So as not to be torn to pieces by fools. I'm simply pointing out; if you think a representative government has malfunctioned, you hold up the issue that is in error. You don't throw out the idea of a Democracy because it lacks the capacity to serve every last deformed and dissident faction.

    Reply
  60. I never said throw out Democracy. I simply meant there is a core of laws that may very well nullify a vote. UNLESS Constitution is Amended.

    Reply
  61. What an amazing speaker! He set up a stawman and defeated it within two minutes. I've been persuaded.

    Reply
  62. Massey wasn't bought out before they repeated the problems.

    And the next company repeated the same.

    And it is not hypocrisy. We have large amounts of renewable energy here. I use an electric car. Over 50% of all new electricity sources were solar last year. We could do even better.

    You are a fool buying into the propaganda the energy giants spread.

    Reply
  63. Your electric car runs on fossil. 11.7% of electricity is renewable, and hydroelectric, from dams being 6.2%, so wind and solar combined is just 5.5% of total. And, according to the Dept of Energy, of the US, subsidies per gigawatt hour are about $23 for these green sources, and 24 CENTS for oil/ nat gas. They green would be zero, if govt wasnt taxing productive activity, giving it to unproductive. You are full of shit.

    Reply
  64. The point wasn't that it doesn't use some, but that I've taken measures to reduce my footprint and in no way is that hypocrisy.

    Over half the new energy development today in the US was solar. And its costs are comparable.

    The subsidies for oil and gas are far greater in total when you add up sources.

    You are the only one full of it here.

    Reply
  65. Your electric car runs on fossil. The figures I gave you, on subsidies is based on a quatity of energy. Solar gets WAY more, and couldnt exist, without it. Germany, Spain subsidzed solar as well, to its dismay. People say Oil depletian allowance is a subsidy, yet is no different, than depreciation, which all busineeses can take. Most oil "subsidies" are not subsidies at all.

    Reply
  66. The cost of oil an nat gas
    Oil=war thousands of lives polluted air causing health care cost to go up destruction of top soil an enemies to our nation for supporting dictatorships.
    Nat gas=earthquakes water pollution
    People think so short term its get the oil get the gas now but fuck the kids future food water air land as long as gas is cheap now

    Reply
  67. False. Again there are far, far more oil and coal companies in the US, receiving far more total subsidies.

    You are including non-US sources also. Which have nothing to do with my energy consumption.

    Of course Germany is going to have higher subsidies for renewable with their expansion there, and no real oil production of their own.

    awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1012/subsidize-this/flat.html

    Reply
  68. Are you confused were Houston is?

    maps.google.com/maps?q=Houston+Map&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8640b8b4488d8501:0xca0d02def365053b,Houston,+TX&gl=us&ei=GqrgUYWcNOTlyAHdp4GwBw&ved=0CDkQ8gEwAA

    The refinery zone is on the Coast. The Refineries are owned by a variety of investors, the main target refineries that can actually process Tar Sands are owned at least in part by Mid East countries. You add in the quotes from Canadian elected officials and energy experts, the Keystone XL is an export pipeline

    Reply
  69. Two issues. 1st it necessary to know many "subsidies' Libs claim are on oil, are not subsidies at all. Oil Depletian allowance, being one, easy to see example. As a field runs towards empty, its value declines, and the deduction is just like depreciating a truck, or machine, like all businesses do. So, I reject they ARE subsidy. 2nd, if solar gets $100 subsidy, and oil gets $120, but makes 20 times the energy, which energy is really subsidized more?

    Reply
  70. Go ahead, put those costs on oil. YOU will pay the bill, customers pay ALL costs, always. OR, make solar mandatory, pay many times more NOW. What we do now, is by far cheaper. But if you want to crash econmy, by burying people struggling NOW, with higher costs, go ahead, try to sell that fucking nonsense.

    Reply
  71. Except you have no support to the claim US only energy subsidies are higher for Solar.

    And then you have to look at total cost. You can talk about balancing them when the markets are balanced.

    But again more dishonest manipulation on your part.

    And yes the subsidies are just that. Word games don't change what they really are. But again no surprise given you've been dishonest from the start.

    Reply
  72. US Dept of Energy 2011, published the statistics. OI and natural gas, subsidy per megawatt hour of energy- 64 cents. Solar $775 per megawatt hour of energy. Wind $56 . Those 2 alternatives couldnt possible exist, without govt taking money from productive people, and enterprises.

    Reply
  73. link, you do know you can post them by just leaving off the portion all websites have at the beginning. Until then, you are full of it. And this is the second time you've chosen not to provide them when asked. Not my job to research your claims. You made the claim you support it.

    Besides the fact you keep changing the topic of debate every time your points get countered.

    Reply
  74. You also still completely ignore the environmental and health risks in the comparison.

    Oh and wait, I thought you said they weren't subsidies. Your own US Dept of energy stats there say SUBSIDY.

    Reply
  75. You do realize as production and use increase, costs go down. Oil and gas being prevalent already have that larger production. As the Solar and Wind production increases, their need for subsidies drop.

    Solars costs have already dropped by large amounts making them cost effective, in just the last few years.

    Reply
  76. "eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf" This is a PDF file, of "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007: by US Enegy Information Administration. Once om the chapter, go to Table 35, which came up as page 16, . Natgas/oil got 25 cents, per gigawatt hour, and wind was $23.37, and solar $24.34.

    Reply
  77. Dammit Thom, your missing one KEY aspect to Libertarianism.. Which is the STRICT following of the Bill Of Rights, and having property rights upheld. In that situation, if said Fertilizer corporation dumps toxic crap that pollutes my property, under the 6th I should be able to take that corporation to court by jury. Where I can either accept compensation or the corporation must remedy they're illegal acts or be served the corporate death penalty.

    Reply
  78. Without realizing it I'm sure, you just made the best argument anyone can make against government.

    People aren't perfect, they do wrong, and so do the businesses and governments they create. That's why monopolies are bad…

    Reply
  79. So basically the argument is:

    "people do bad things. Therefore ALL of us have to be under the monopolistic boot of the state and have our stuff stolen."

    Ya, makes perfect sense.

    Reply
  80. Or, y'know. Laws.

    Your analysis might be more… Nuanced? Relevant? Reality-oriented? If you take account of there being laws.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *