- Joined
- 7/6/11
- Messages
- 69
- Points
- 18
Please, do not quote me anymore.
For someone who loves liberty so much, you sure enjoy telling people what to believe and how to act

Please, do not quote me anymore.
For someone who loves liberty so much, you sure enjoy telling people what to believe and how to act.
I think laws/statements need to be analyzed within their context, and not at face value.
... but we did better with one
Fascist? Because I acknowledge a civilized society must have law which must in turn be enforced (at least to some extent)? That's quite the stretch if you ask me...
Really? That's an interesting opinion. Especially considering that things like roads, electric cables and sewage systems it's generally accepted that a government is more efficient at dealing with than individuals (even with the misfires that inevitably happen in any system)... because everyone building their own sewage system turns out to be really super expensive. Theory is it's so expensive, that even the occasional bridge to nowhere thrown in with the normal, generally well functioning system, pales in comparison to the cost. And can you imagine the cost of electricity if every electric company ran its own wire to your house?
Also, you have capitalism backwards. It favors large monopolies, not "entrepreneurs". To drop state functions into the hands of "entrepreneurs" is just a thinly disguised entitlement. You are spreading the work that could be done by 10 people to 10 different groups of 10 people. It's actually EXACTLY what Sweden does. Oh the irony.
Nobody is asking to quit repaving roads. You're apparently still not understanding my argument. It's efficiency we're sacrificing. Nobody is arguing against infrastructure investment, just how it ought to be done.Sure, the return on re-paving a beat up road is less than that of putting a new road in place. However, this is a poor argument for not repaving roads.
I disagree for reasons I have already stated.Yes, "some" federal infrastructure is laughable. There are cracks in any system. But most of it is legit.
Perhaps the real world of which numerous examples I mentioned and you ignored... For how little you seem to read my posts you sure seem eager to instigate a response.What kind of Government intervention are you talking about? What kind of theoretical world do you think we live in?
Just because the government's anti trust legislation offers a cumbersome and inefficient method of breaking up monopolies does not imply it is the only, much less most efficient, means of competition. Again, actually read what you're responding to, and you'll see plenty of examples where government in fact creates and maintains many monopolies through legal barriers to entry, while further destroying competition through uneven taxation and regulation. Just in case I need to add this, this does not mean anti trust legislation is never useful, but to say it is solely necessary or "certainly needed" is incorrect. Stepping out of the private sector and firstly allowing these firms to compete is many times a valid and more efficient solution. These are anything but new concepts I'm sourcing and are found, besides in my real world examples, in any good intermediate micro book, usually under "Causes of Monopoly". I suggest you look there to answer your contention.In the real world, antitrust legislation ("Government intervention") is most certainly needed to break up monopolies, which are merely the natural end-state of business in capitalism, and make sure competition can actually take place... I'm not sure what you're going to do to argue against this, since this is one is also more or less of a "gimme" supported/demonstrated by history over and over again... I still contend you have capitalism backwards.
What is your argument in that case? That I sell the portion of the road in front of my house to a company and then pay them for upkeep? Why not just build another house over the area and sell it? MUCH higher return...
That I get 3-4 sewage companies to route their lines to my house in hopes of competition forming?
Or are you arguing that we turn into Sweden and hire entrepreneurs to do the work of "the government" for it/auction off the work to entrepreneurs? Because you know to make sure that it ends up in the hands of entrepreneurs you'd have to block the large corporations from undercutting them...
Is there something special about that particular macroeconomics book or is it like the other ones?