I've joined the Libertarian Party... - General

[QUOTE=s0beit;29135892]Apple is a horrible example of monopoly, primarily because Apple was competing against many existing monopolies at that time. Namely, [b]Microsoft[/b]. Apple is one of the arguments against monopolies, not for monopolies.[/QUOTE] I was talking about there mp3s not pcs. I mean you have to admit apple has more then like 95% of the mp3 market even though there are other mp3s with more memory for lower the price. [editline]12th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;29135892]Life causes stress, not the free market. Even if you removed the supposed stresses of the free market there would be plenty of other venues of stress for people to get freaked out about.[/QUOTE] Yes but studies show a more capitalist society causes stresses one of them being a sense of worthlessness when your poorer. Like I said this has been shown to increase many problems like drug addiction and the like. I guess if you were able to make a free market with little to no wealth classes then It would go away but that would be pretty hard to do.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29136311]I was talking about there mp3s not pcs. I mean you have to admit apple has more then like 95% of the mp3 market even though there are other mp3s with more memory for lower the price.[/quote] Then why is that a problem? Just buy those alternatives. Nobody is forcing you to buy apple (and they definitely do not have 95% of the market, lol, it would be in newspapers all over the world) [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29136311] Yes but studies show a more capitalist society causes stresses one of them being a sense of worthlessness when your poorer. Like I said this has been shown to increase many problems like drug addiction and the like. I guess if you were able to make a free market with little to no wealth classes then It would go away but that would be pretty hard to do.[/QUOTE] Then you're talking about being poor causes stress, not capitalism itself. There are many ways to offer opportunities to the poor, not just through charity either, as i explained earlier.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29136529]Then you're talking about being poor causes stress, not capitalism itself. There are many ways to offer opportunities to the poor, not just through charity either, as i explained earlier.[/QUOTE] Nope its not just the poor it goes though out all classes. Its the fact that there are other below them or above them that causes it or something like that. [editline]12th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;29136529]Then why is that a problem? Just buy those alternatives. Nobody is forcing you to buy apple (and they definitely do not have 95% of the market, lol, it would be in newspapers all over the world)[/QUOTE] Well ok then walmart. If you live in a small town its the only place you can go to. Oh and I used apple as the advertising thing you talked about earlier.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29136311] Yes but studies show a more capitalist society causes stresses one of them being a sense of worthlessness when your poorer. Like I said this has been shown to increase many problems like drug addiction and the like. I guess if you were able to make a free market with little to no wealth classes then It would go away but that would be pretty hard to do.[/QUOTE] Its nigh impossible. The capitalist system rewards success and punishes failure, even if you had a million of the same person comprise the entirety of a capitalist society eventually one of them will get a bright idea, if for no other reason than dumb luck, before the others and succeed beyond his peers. That being said, social classes are already a very weakened force in America. It takes a lifetime of work or a lifetime of screwing up to do it, but the rich can become poor and the poor can become rich upon their own accord, no glass ceilings attached.

[QUOTE=Azaer;29136817]That being said, social classes are already a very weakened force in America. It takes a lifetime of work or a lifetime of screwing up to do it, but the rich can become poor and the poor can become rich upon their own accord, no glass ceilings attached.[/QUOTE] This doesnt really have anything to do with what I said but whatever. But you have to admit when your rich its pretty hard to become poor. All you have to do is loan your money and you will be making money off of money. Also most rich people aren't rich because they they had a bright idea. Most of the time its from getting job opportunities or being born into that class.

[QUOTE='[GRiM];29135760']Well, people in the Progressive party try to tell us what to eat, how to act, and how to think. Basically they try to slam bullshit down everyone's throat.[/QUOTE] What Progressive Party are you referring to, exactly? The 2 state parties in the US are in incredibly minor, and there hasn't been any "Progressive Party" on the federal level for over 50 years.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29130608]again, youve misinterpreted the very definition of a monopoly. s0beit had this explained very well so i suggest you read previous posts to follow up on this discussion as it was already addressed. so you believe that it is the governments responsibility, morally, to decide what is best for the individual? do you underestimate the average person's intelligence or ability to lead their lives? this isnt a very good way to look at the situation. sure, you can avoid "exploitation" but it will always exist. if you don't put faith in the individual, then freedom is meaningless.[/QUOTE] So says you, but that's not a truth, only an opinion. Yes, I do, most people could sure, but many cannot. They shouldn't be marginalized by your greed, or by any greed. And no, how does that advocate any morality? Taxation and service don't advocate a morality by definition. They may in current form, but they don't have to.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29135525]guess how they got the money for all that advertising :downs:[/QUOTE] I think you've missed my point. Funds they could've allocated to make a better product, gets used on advertising instead, because that is more profitable. It's a ludicrous libertarian concept that huge corporations are successful due to a superior product. Mostly it's a mix of advertising and buying out the competition. Also, this is why everyone hates libertarians: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBHicyqMML4[/media]

[QUOTE=Taishu;29144090]I think you've missed my point. Funds they could've allocated to make a better product, gets used on advertising instead, because that is more profitable. It's a ludicrous libertarian concept that huge corporations are successful due to a superior product.[/quote] Well it's true some corporations might dedicate more money to public advertising that doesn't necessarily make it effective. Look at alcohol or tobacco companies where most advertising is banned by the government, since HumanAbyss used that as an example earlier, how does a brand gain a market share due to advertising? That's ridiculous. I agree most companies don't have their priorities in order when it comes to advertising but once again (and nobody has refuted this so far) a company can not become successful on advertising alone, and advertising even in the largest companies is often not priority number one since they're always, [b]always[/b] dedicating more money to produce the product over advertising it. [QUOTE=Taishu;29144090]Mostly it's a mix of advertising and buying out the competition.[/quote] Where did they get the money for advertising in the first place, or "buying out the competition"? People don't sell their companies if they're certain they'll succeed, if anything it's more because they're afraid to lose money facing a superior company. [QUOTE=Taishu;29144090]Also, this is why everyone hates libertarians: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBHicyqMML4[/media][/QUOTE] Wow... just wow, congratulations on presenting one hell of a stupid argument.

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29129448]Better dead than red.[/QUOTE] [img]http://1d4chan.org/images/d/dc/Ork_WTF_is_this.jpg[/img] But red wunz go fasta

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29129448]Better dead than red.[/QUOTE] Why?

[QUOTE=s0beit;29144470]Well it's true some corporations might dedicate more money to public advertising that doesn't necessarily make it effective. Look at alcohol or tobacco companies where most advertising is banned by the government, since HumanAbyss used that as an example earlier, how does a brand gain a market share due to advertising? That's ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Well, in the case of tobacco, I would think it's different, since they perhaps rely more on the addiction of their consumers. I still see plenty of advertisements for alcohol so I'm not sure about that. [QUOTE=s0beit;29144470]I agree most companies don't have their priorities in order when it comes to advertising but once again (and nobody has refuted this so far) a company can not become successful on advertising alone, and advertising even in the largest companies is often not priority number one since they're always, [b]always[/b] dedicating more money to produce the product over advertising it.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm]Nope.[/url] [QUOTE=s0beit;29144470]Where did they get the money for advertising in the first place, or "buying out the competition"?[/QUOTE] The company which funnels money into advertising rather than the product itself, will in all probability beat the company which doesn't. While they may have started out with an original quality product, that has now become irrelevant. The development of the product will most likely stagnate once they've earned enough revenue to start an ad campaign. [QUOTE=s0beit;29144470]People don't sell their companies if they're certain they'll succeed, if anything it's more because they're afraid to lose money facing a superior company.[/QUOTE] I'm not quite sure how this is relevant, please explain. [QUOTE=s0beit;29144470]Wow... just wow, congratulations on presenting one hell of a stupid argument.[/QUOTE] Whoa, relax, it was a joke. Just like the video. Or at least I hope the video is a joke. I would find it incredibly sad if anyone was so steeped in randian objectivist bullshit.

You all swallowed this massive chunk of troll bait? He's an impressionable kid who still lives a sheltered life with mommy and daddy, of course he's gonna have political opinions that conform to his cushy little world.

[QUOTE=Taishu;29145100]Well, in the case of tobacco, I would think it's different, since they perhaps rely more on the addiction of their consumers. I still see plenty of advertisements for alcohol so I'm not sure about that.[/quote] i have a question to challenge this logic: how do tobacco companies keep racking in new, young, first-time customers? people arent born addicted, and, like s0beit said, most of their advertising is banned. [quote][url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm]Nope.[/url][/quote] pharmaceutical companies go hand in hand with politicians. the amount of lobbying involved in the business is [url=http://spinwatch.org/-news-by-category-mainmenu-9/168-big-pharma/639-george-bush-top-lobbyist-for-pharmaceutical]ridiculous.[/url] if the government is wiping their asses then of course they'll spend more money on advertising. [quote]The company which funnels money into advertising rather than the product itself, will in all probability beat the company which doesn't.[/quote] prove it xd no, really. i'd like to see evidence. [quote]While they may have started out with an original quality product, that has now become irrelevant. The development of the product will most likely stagnate once they've earned enough revenue to start an ad campaign.[/quote] it really depends on the case on whether the development will stagnate, but mostly, no, it won't. if that logic is true, why are computers, tvs, game consoles, appliances, etc. getting better (just to mention one category)? if the quality of, for example, a beverage DROPS, not simply stagnates, people will become dissatisfied and buy a different one. a good example is New Coke. [quote]I'm not quite sure how this is relevant, please explain.[/quote] werent you blabbering on about how companies buy out eachother? there you go. [quote]I would find it incredibly sad if anyone was so steeped in randian objectivist bullshit.[/QUOTE] i would find it incredibly sad if anyone was so steeped in FDR-ian progressive bullshit. oh wait... [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Beaverlake;29144733]Why?[/QUOTE] dont let his ignorant, mainstream view of libertarianism cloud the real platform for it. it's obvious that neoconservatives masquerading as "libertarians" have hijacked the tea party movement and related ideological subscriptions as well.

Shivian is an expert troll [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] trollbertarian

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29149619]i would find it incredibly sad if anyone was so steeped in FDR-ian progressive bullshit. oh wait...[/QUOTE] Yeah because FDR was such a wackjob, am I right?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29150275]Yeah because FDR was such a wackjob, am I right?[/QUOTE] he basically introduced the government social safety net that accumulates more and more debt each year. (ex: social security) he changed americans' attitudes on the role of government in their lives for the worse. i seriously have a problem with both the new deal policies and their effect on america and its citizens in the long run. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;29150186]Shivian is an expert troll [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] trollbertarian[/QUOTE] he isn't a troll, he's just a misinformed idiot. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] attention automerge, i am replying to an old post: [QUOTE=Robbobin;29022272]I don't believe in the free market; I think we're at the stage where corporations are damaging society.[/QUOTE] corporatism is [b]not[/b] an aspect of a free market economy.

[QUOTE=Beaverlake;29144733]Why?[/QUOTE] Better to die free than live in a communist state.

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29151430]Better to die free than live in a communist state.[/QUOTE] tell me, what is your idea of a communist state?

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29151444]tell me, what is your idea of a communist state?[/QUOTE] Soviet Union. But America is heading down that path, and it's a slippery slope.

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29151484]Soviet Union. But America is heading down that path, and it's a slippery slope.[/QUOTE] the soviet union was [i]far[/i] from a communist state. if you actually know and understand marx's principles then you would realize that the USSR was an authoritarian state under the guise of socialism to fool the people. noam chomsky isnt a person i agree with the most, but here's something you should read: [url]http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29151552]the soviet union was [i]far[/i] from a communist state. if you actually know and understand marx's principles then you would realize that the USSR was an authoritarian state under the guise of socialism to fool the people. noam chomsky isnt a person i agree with the most, but here's something you should read: [url]http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Every time communism has been tried, it has completely and utterly failed.

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29151596]Every time communism has been tried, it has completely and utterly failed.[/QUOTE] do not misrepresent me as a proponent of communism; i am far from it. yes, you are partly right in that everywhere it has been "tried", the temporary government explained in marx's principles never withers away as it is meant to in such a society. however, many political movements/revolutionaries or governments simply dish out totalitarianism and authoritarianism while using communism/socialism/marxism as a mask to gain popular support. you have to realize that in a true communist government, the end product does not involve a state or central government controlling the nation.

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29151596]Every time communism has been tried, it has completely and utterly failed.[/QUOTE] Communism has never been attempted.

[QUOTE=amute;29152389]Communism has never been attempted.[/QUOTE] it sorta has been attempted, only very loosely. the best example i could provide is the Great Leap Forward.

[QUOTE=amute;29152389]Communism has never been attempted.[/QUOTE] Yes it has, just not the type you like.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29144470]Well it's true some corporations might dedicate more money to public advertising that doesn't necessarily make it effective. Look at alcohol or tobacco companies where most advertising is banned by the government, since HumanAbyss used that as an example earlier, how does a brand gain a market share due to advertising? That's ridiculous. I agree most companies don't have their priorities in order when it comes to advertising but once again (and nobody has refuted this so far) a company can not become successful on advertising alone, and advertising even in the largest companies is often not priority number one since they're always, [b]always[/b] dedicating more money to produce the product over advertising it. Where did they get the money for advertising in the first place, or "buying out the competition"? People don't sell their companies if they're certain they'll succeed, if anything it's more because they're afraid to lose money facing a superior company. Wow... just wow, congratulations on presenting one hell of a stupid argument.[/QUOTE] well, lets look at viral video games. Angry Birds. Angry birds is a fantastic little game. BUT, they didn't build it until a year later after they first announced it. They advertised. Now, they made a quality product, but that huge year of advertising for a product skyrocketed their product into the number one spot that it's still holding. And I don't know where you get the idea that just because a company is in a powerful position as it is means that they've earned that in any sense. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;29152790]Yes it has, just not the type you like.[/QUOTE] No, it hasn't been. It's not communism if it doesn't form to the tenants of communism, every form of it previously implemented doesn't.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29153459]And I don't know where you get the idea that just because a company is in a powerful position as it is means that they've earned that in any sense.[/QUOTE] then explain to me; how did they get to such a high position in the first place?

[QUOTE=Explosions;29152790]Yes it has, just not the type you like.[/QUOTE] Do explain what kind of communism I like as opposed to what's been implemented, hm? [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29153546]then explain how they got to such a high position in the first place?[/QUOTE] Stepping over people?

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29153546]then explain to me; how did they get to such a high position in the first place?[/QUOTE] Okay, why is it hard to explain that just because a company once had a quality product that they no longer had to keep quality once they had a large chunk of the market in their pocket and pumped money into advertising, buying out(You don't have to believe it, but you know, a lot of people WILL sell their businesses to make money off them, a lot of people go into business with that idea even) the competition you could buy out, then simply having enough adspace and product to overwhelm the other guys. Stepping over people doesn't hurt. It's not like this doesn't happen in the real world.