/liberty/ - Liberty

There's no hope for the current libertarian PARTY, but the libertarian MOVEMENT has its politics and morality set in solid stone. Republicans have a strong PARTY, but as a movement they are viscous and weak. Hence why every republican can cave in a debate about morality and muh feels they are the first to condemn everything.

I'd rather deregulate EVERYTHING. Regulation of media is why there are 7 companies who are the only ones going to every Trump or Sanders press conference. Regulation of employment and franchising has increased the barrier to entry and keeps these 7 companies free of dogged new competition who smell the blood in the water from the latest bumbles of Jussie and other Fake News. Worried about monopolies? Regulation is how they happen. The big company lobbies big daddy gov't to make it impossible to compete.

For god's sake, let's take 2 examples from the extremely shittily regulated medical industry: Latex and plastic surgery. The only 2 medical practices that aren't regulated have gotten more effective and have been the only procedures in medicine to be reduced in price. There are more providers of these practices per capita than specialists for any other procedure other than dentistry. No regulation, no monopoly. No regulation, cheaper price. If there WERE a monopoly without regulation, it's because everyone loves their product and its naturally occurring through advertising and customer service. If they get too big for their britches, someone in the organization will go rogue and start their own business once things slow down or they see the opportunity for a startup.

Do you give a single fuck what your bank invests in? Do you check your savings and CD portfolio's for growth, profit margins, ensure they aren't investing in companies you don't like? Congratulations moron, you are participating in another highly regulated industry that lobbied government for infinite protections. Who the fuck on Earth has "I lost money making bad bets" insurance? American Banks. You don't give a fuck about your bank's investment practices because you don't HAVE to give a fuck about it. It's so well protected from failure that you aren't looking for a competitive bank. Interest rates are at an all time low and there is now less reason to have a savings account than any share of penny cryptos. Wanna know how it got this way? Why banks were allowed to loan to death in 2008? REGULATION.

Give me an example of regulation for the better.

>>98237

Any business is in the market. Media is about money. The media that has lobbied to be the only ones allowed into the white house and on the tarmac and even the camera's in congress have been the same for 60 years. Why allow the government to make these decisions?

You are literally saying that news was regulated pre 1992, and that media was terrible because it was a tool of the government at this point. What's your point? That media and government don't mix?

>>98238

My point is the media was owned by THOUSANDS of companies then after they got deregulated it quickly went to seven. An it created a situation where the people who ran the media also ran oil and arms companies along with other miscellaneous things like drugs, plastics, ect. An they sold a illegal war as a result. An are trying to do it again with syria an iran. As well as pushing censorship under the guies of stopping fake news.

>>98240

What the fuck are you on about? Censorship is regulation. I am ANTI REGULATION. The Iraq war SHOULD have been treated like Vietnam. Everyone should have full disclosure of all available information. Full deregulation.

>>98239

Imma be a redditor for a second and say:

^This

>>98240

>they got deregulated

sauce

>>98244

Without regulation you literally cannot franchise. You open up a Walmart in Tulsa and someone opens a mock Walmart completely unaccountable to you in San Bernardino. These people only have these giant streams and branching sectors of control because of government legislation on markets. No accountability because they can own the oppositional news organizations. In a free market economy this is literally impossible.

>>98247

Well that is a case of partial deregulation because there are still barriers of entry

https://mises.org/library/question-cable-monopoly

>>98247

>>98248

I feel I should add that the reason there is a monopoly is because you need federal approval to create a television station and need to pay federal licensing fees. Also anyone wanting to operate a cable company must follow federal regulations and sign a franchise agreement with the local government.

>>98232

>Then I realize that i as a libertarian could not make a argument for regulating the media, or banks, or anything really.

To be fair to libertarians, they at least are against government subsidies for these businesses, but then they are retarded and autistically dont want to break up monopolies.

Also, Ann Coulter had a pretty good argument against them in that they are mostly right wingers economically, but they are pussies and cuck out to leftist all the time by making their whole thing about legalizing weed and gay marriage ect. in order to get leftist to like them.

Also, the libertarian party is a fucking joke and they deserve to be mocked when they are behaving like fucking idiots and clowns by stripping at their own events. And most seem to veer into the retardation that is ancap LARPing.

>>98258

Monopolies cannot exist without government enforcement of copyright laws, so they can't be retarded in that aspect. There is nothing forcing everyone in the world to respect the Chinese buying Floridian property and not developing it so that real estate prices go up. You either own something, and are making use of it, or you aren't. No stupid titles or licenses for businesses or banks or land ownership. You can shut yer yap if you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

>>98261

>The average individual doesn’t and will likely never have the resources to compete with ABC, or google

Yeah that's why you get a loan from the bank to start of your business. Plus in a free market when companies get too big Dis-economies of scale could take place.

>So i have yet to figure out a way besides government intervention to fix it. Ive been thinking about it on an off for two years now.

It's already been figured out. Just pick up a book like Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

>>98259

>Monopolies cannot exist without government enforcement of copyright laws, so they can't be retarded in that aspect.

yes they are retarded because of the fact that monopolies do in fact exist in the real world. When you play these stupid ivory tower imagination time games and live in a world of pure theory. The reality is that monopolies exist and you need to break them up if you dont want them to exist.

>I used to love freedom, but now I'm more than willing to give it away

We've had this thread too many times and it's always fucking dumb. If you know anything about anything you should know that you can't have a small, constrained republic. The Founders vision failed, and they were enlightened, powerful men. The only way to keep any freedom is to keep all of it. Anything less and you'll end up enslaved soon enough. That's not to mention the utter immorality of endorsing any kind of state.

>>98338

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU SHYLOCK DICK RIDING MORON.

>Also you cannot compete with ANY loan as a individual. This is the most retarded shit ive read all day im not sure if you are trolling but holy fuck. How is joe shmo going to employ 100 journalists camera crews ect on a fuckin bank loan.

Because you're an autistic brainlet who doesn't understand what barriers of entry are and you don't need journalists. Cameras would actually be cheaper in a free market too because there aren't any IP laws. You have to start offsnall

>No u. Im not going to spend 50 hours reading a book just to find out your wrong about everything or you didn’t even read the book. You teach me or don’t. “go read a book” is not a defense I accept. “Its already been solved” is also not a defense. Especially when leterally anyone with a basic human experience can just look around and see that it clearly has not been solved.

<too lazy to read

<acting autistic

<i-its not solved because i say so

your double digit iq is showing. pick a book nigger

>>98339

Lets just stip this whole thing down. Because i just wanna know what you think. Should jeff Bezos be alowed to own amazon, server banks, twitch, and the wall street journal?

If not, how exactly would the free market fix it. Just to make it easier You can keep it concise with bullet points like a logical any argument

>if x then y

>x

>therefore x

>>98340

I think he should be allowed to own it. It's optional to use his services especially in a free market. Jeff Bezos does not play fairly though. He lobbies politicians and pays Zero taxes on Amazon's revenue

>But we can also simultaneously stop people from getting monopolies. We can leterally do both

It doesn't work that way and it has never worked that way. The government can't be trusted to "break up monopolies" that they created in the first place. It's better they didn't intervene in the economy. The government has almost always sold itself to the highest bidder.

>>98349

>An thats the problem with libertarians you can and should get rid of all those regulations AND simultaneously regulate how big one media outlit can get. Because fixing those problems he listed wont desolve monopolies. He doesn’t even make a argument on why the whould he just lists some things and leaves it sort of in the air. You realize as a Republican you can make both argument right?

In a free market if or when a company gets too big Dis-economies of scale can happen (meaning that once a company becomes too big it becomes too unwieldy). Also "regulating how big a company can get" is a bad idea because if one company manages to lobby the government. Guess who has a monopoly meanwhile all the other companies are stuck having to obey the law. I don't know what you mean by Republican. If you mean the GOP sure I support the except how they are still cronyists. Some also support gun control like bump stock bans and a lot are neocons.

Why are we replying to a lewd poster

>>98354

I've stopped. The problem is that we're all very interested in liberty, so we all want to entertain every single question or topic which is related. Even if it's not genuine, even if the OP doesn't give a shit, etc.

>>98358

Shut up mark you stopped cuz i called you euphoric and edgy.

>>98353

>SORCE

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/diseconomiesofscale.asp

Its basically all covered there. If a company becomes over crowded, too large to manage, etc

>How does technology prevent this?

Technology can prevent and cause it. Too many people operating too few machines can decrease the marginal output (the law of diminishing returns). Technology can also allow a company to get bigger without falling apart like full automation where you can have AI write news articles or something.

>How will automation prevent this?

Prevent dis economies of scales?

>How many people get fucked over in the time it gets too big till it breaks apart?

Well in a free market if a company gets too big, too overcrowded, too many people too pay. The marginal output will decrease and the cost of the product will increase. So competition can just come in with lower prices. Government allows companies to grow bigger and bigger without any competition. For example, I live in Canada. We have some of the highest cell phone rates in the world. It's not even funny how much we have too pay

>https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/05/07/canadian-phone-data-worst/

There are 3 companies that basically make up the whole cell phone provider market

>Bell

>Rogers

>Telus

These companies charge absurd amounts without any competition. It's basically monopoly pricing. The reason they can do this without any competition is because they lobby the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) too knock out any competition. You need approval from the CRTC to setup a network. So a company called Wind mobile tried to setup a carrier. The three big companies did everything they could to stop them lawsuits, getting the CRTC to enact new laws etc. It's a shitstorm without proper competition.

The tl;dr of the anecdotal is that megacorps always use the government to push their interests. I may have went a bit off topic but I want you to understand more regulations just aren't the answer when it comes to stopping oligopolies or monopolies.

>>98354

Idk man

>>98363

>Diseconomies seem like wizardry, used to get out of a monopoly argument. I can see your point but there is no real evidence showing that it’s possible that it would happen. Also there is no reson to believe it would happen in every industry. Because each industry would have a turning point that would be unknown and different for each company

What monopoly argument? I've yet to see a monopoly without government intervention come up and I've yet to see someone prove a monopoly can form in a free market

Also it can happen and it's very easy to see. Look at the law of diminishing returns

> http://www.economicsconcepts.com/law_of_diminishing_returns.htm

>Your essentially keeping your fingers crossed that companies get so big they fall apart, and said company doesn’t find any solution to there problems so as not to fall apart. All while not being concerned with the economic and social problems of such a company falling apart. Not to mention that as far as i can imagine a company would have to get impossibly large before this even became a concern. Like larger then any company that has ever existed, given modern technology. It might of been true when the industral age started that a business got too big for it britches, but I cannot conceive of it happing today.

Here's an example that I found online

> Imagine you're wanting to start a factory. This factory makes widgets out of a production line. You scout the market and find that the lowest price per square foot available in a building will facilitate 10 lines.

> One line is capable of producing 1,000 widgets in an 8 hour shift and requires 10 personnel to operate. As the factory owner, you're OK managing these 10 people for one shift.

> As orders approach 1,000 units, the marginal cost per unit declines. However, once the orders consistently exceed 1,000 units, you find you'll need to start up a second shift. This proves difficult on your time as you can't effectively manage 20 people across two shifts - you'd like to go home and sleep now and again - so you hire a foreman.

> Because of this foreman, you add additional cost to the structure so the marginal cost of the next unit is now higher than the marginal cost of the previous unit.

> What you get is a pattern of cost per unit that looks like pic related

> That's the best cost per unit you can ever hope to have with the current capital structure. If you wish to sell more units, you have to build a whole new factory, which result in the cost per unit line rocketing up.

> This new factory would eventually require hiring a full factory manager, which pyramids the labor structure. Every additional factory requires a new manager until enough factories exist where the owner can't manage them all, so that owner has to hire a VP to start cascading down costs.

> This is why large companies naturally develop a pyramid structure - it's impossible to manage that many people alone and requires an ever increasing pyramid to keep it organized. This pyramiding is the dis-economies of scale.

> That maximum efficiency point of the organization will continue to creep up higher and higher the more your organization sells.

> The economies part comes into play because investors care less for margin if volume increases. Selling 10,000 units at $99 profit/each is better than selling 5,000 units at $100 profit/each. Large companies have a smaller margin than smaller companies do but the raw volume makes up for it.

> The topmost limit is where that additional layer of management to keep the company organized makes the margin so low at competitive prices that no one wants to invest in the company anymore.

> Where upstarts can eat into a large company is the smaller company can match the margins of a larger company on a much smaller price point.

> A smaller company can undercut the price by shaving a bit into the margin and start eating away at the market share. But this comes with them beginning to grow and shrinking margins with the expansion of management.

>>98338

>Also you cannot compete with ANY loan as a individual.

What is crowd funding?

>>98405

The wishing well unstable or unfounded solutions libertarians give as overly simplistic cure alls is annoying. You guys have a lot in common with communists in your ability to do mental gymnastics to justify a opinion, be it Diseconomies to crowd funding.

>Why crowd funding wouldn’t work.

No one person has gotten the capital form croud funding to be a legitimate threat to (insert top seven media company) ever. It has never happened. Also the social issues in crowd funding. If they’re funding it the companies success is souly depndent of keeping 10s of thousands of people appeased. Which will likely lead to very schizophrenic programming the in turn makes no one happy. Also this would require such a large investment that it requires many assumptions on your part. Regarding how people would act, and stick around for such a company. Also its flawed in that, if the people funding this don’t see a return on there investment the whole thing becomes unsustainable. Meaning that one person whould have a limit to HOW MUCH they could fund and support. So you’re essentially requiring that each funder become a part time media manager, or create a power structer to manage it to ensure a return. At which point were exactly where we started and instead of seven companies you have eight. An you likely will only ever have eight because the people funding it are not going to fund competition. AND THATS A IDEAL OUTCOME. What would likely happen is you would fund it. Not get it off the ground, due to lack of funding, and then cry.

Or you have something like a credit union where the people fund it indirectly threw a credit union. At which point you have all the same complications that you had with a bank, on top of now having to create a mida company that can make a return on the credit unions investment. Not to mention this would require the existence OF a credit union which also creates a entirely new host of problems introdued into your society assuming you don’t regulate them.

Why are cumskins such boot lickers? If they goverment tell them to hate their race they go ahead and do it. It's unbeliavable. Bear with me

>be white

>watch tv

>see (((white))) saying whites are bad

>now I hate whites

How the fuck they haven't self destructed yet? bloody hell the jews where right, slaves in human skin