“Give me a realistic situation.”

I think Tomi gave you a perfectly REALISTIC situation, given the – underlying assumption of markets fixing it all, and no government in place – since in that situation (you should really be able to understand this, otherwise Nokia has made a shocking recruitement in your case) the STATE wouldn’t own anything. Thus it would be possible for SOMEONE, to buy all the land surrounding Phil’s house.

But – generally – for anyone being able to give REALISTC situations as arguments against your extremely vague notion of libertarianism, you would have to define what your libertarianism means. You don´t seem to be able to do this. you just whine about ALKO, goverment etc. But you refuse to give any alternative solutions (ok, in ALKOs case the solution from your viewpoint is rather simple, but in general you´re just whining in a rather irritating manner).

In the very same response to a reader you write the following two phrases:

“No, because small government, or no government, can do things better.”

and

“Bad example because someone has unlawfully locked you in a room.”

Do you seriously not see how idiotic your freedom-loving is? just based on these two phrases.

If the “no government option you advocate in the first phrase was in use, then who the hell would declare “locking somebody in a room” unLAWful?

How naive can you get?

“You’re pulling this stuff out of your ass. You’re talking about anarchy.”

No I’m not. Full personal FREEDOM means I’m allowed to murder anybody I like/dislike. Period. If I’m not allowed to do this my FULL PERSONAL FREEDOM is RESTRICTED by means of law,

“The further they stick their noses, the more monopolies we’d see for sure. If there’s laws against monopolies, why do I have visit only Alko for my Belgian ales?”

Are you actually claiming that there isn´t a whole lot of legislation (and laws – at least in Finland – are passed by the “state”) AGAINST monopolies? Are you claiming this isn’t the case in e.g. the U.S. Are you claimimng that the “state” doesn´t actively act against monopolies, via e.g. the kilpailuvirasto?

What planet are you living on?

Your favourite monopoly ALKO, and your extreme dislike for it is well known, and you do not need to bring this up once more. Or what does ALKO prove? The monopoly – in this case – brought upon us by law. But that doesn’t mean that the “state” doesn’t – through legislation – work actively against monopolies in other markets.

Furtermore, I don’t know what the “Belgian Ales” you like are, but there seemed to be ales inthe local Citymarket the last time I visited. So maybe your local supermarket has simply considered Phil´s Belgian Ales to be unmarketable.

“It’s called competition.”

So you would in fact consider competing water distribution networks, electricity distribution networks, railroads, … etc. sensible, just because they would bring on COMPETITION. Are you really this stupid?

The fact that we have several GSM-networks, is stupid enough, but your employer reaps millions, since they are able to sell three times as much network equipment for three separate networks. Do you seriously think that somebody else, except the consumer pays for this? Who is this invisible financer that you seem to have in mind? The famous “invisible hand” perhaps. Nowadays called the “invisible wallet”.

The libertarian naivety is simply astonishing, from time to time.

“What is kykypuole?”

It’s the Kokoomus-party.

“What do you mean by “equality-sensed? Like, equality is very important to libertarians?”

Yes. Equality is very important to libertarians. Even though they themselves usually don´t understand this. Equality is present – one way or another – in every definition of “freedom”. At least those I´ve come across.

Give me a realistic situation.

How would that be possible? They’d have to buy the road from the state, or my driveway from me.

Oh, I see, in your utopia the state owns the roads. What else? Anyway, you completed missed the point, but you have to know that yourself.

It seems as if alot of people aren’t understanding libertarianism, and that’s not your fault, it’s the fault of the anarcho-libertarians who have kinda taken over the whole party and movement.

Yes, I know there are all kinds of libertarians. Your kind seems to be some sort of Social Democratic one.

You’re pulling this stuff out of your ass. You’re talking about anarchy.

If the state wouldn’t “stick their nose in business” there would be FAR more monopolies. That’s why there are laws against monopolies, or is this too difficult for you to understand?

The further they stick their noses, the more monopolies we’d see for sure. If there’s laws against monopolies, why do I have visit only Alko for my Belgian ales?

As long as the awful state provides the protection for competitors. Without that, most monopolies would just dump prices as long as it takes to wipe out competition. And then raise prices EVEN more.

If you’re the only guy in town and you have insanely high prices, you won’t be the only guy in town for long.

But in what sense does the consumer benefit from this FREEDOM.

It’s called competition.

Thank you, to people like you, and the so called “kykypuolue”, which seems to be right up your alley mostly.

What is kykypuole?

You FREEDOM-lovers are so equality-sensed, that communists would blush.

“I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Friedman, libertarians, and myself would not allow murder. We don’t believe in zero government, “the night watchman state” is one of the most basic principles.”

OK. But what is “the night watchman state” exactly? Every person claiming to be a libertarian seems to have his/her own perception of the term. It’s very difficult to debate one way or another, since the definition keeps changing continuously. In fact, it seems to change so that it perfectly fits the latest libertarian slogan. It’s easy to say that you are for FREEDOM, especially if you define FREEDOM in such vague terms as most libertarians do. But FULL INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM allows me to do anything I please, including murder. If I’m not allowed to commit murder, then my FULL INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM has been violated. Like it or not.

“Well we already have monopolies now, and maybe if the state wouldn’t stick their noses in businesses, there’d be monopolies too.”

If the state wouldn’t “stick their nose in business” there would be FAR more monopolies. That’s why there are laws against monopolies, or is this too difficult for you to understand?

“But here’s the key difference – with state monopolies (like Alko) NO ONE may compete, with monopolies in the free-market, everyone has the opportunity to compete.”

As long as the awful state provides the protection for competitors. Without that, most monopolies would just dump prices as long as it takes to wipe out competition. And then raise prices EVEN more.

But concerning state monopolies (I know Alko is your favourite enemy – but could you PLEASE find another dead horse to beat, next time) what are there left really? Even the most likely NATURAL MONPOLIES have been given away, for free, to private “monopolies/oligopolies”. What is the point in having 2-3 competing GSM-networks (with different coverability in different areas of the country), when ONE network would be CHEAPER, and would provide FULL coverage of Finland. Your employer – being a network equipment developer – surely benefits. But in what sense does the consumer benefit from this FREEDOM. It can be expressed in two words: no way. The idiotic “privatisation” of the railways in the U.K. is just another example. What kind of de-monopolising is that, that you hand out tens of “sub-monopolies” to “private” entrepeneurs? Sadly, these – idiot libertarian – principles have gained popularity among politicians here in Finland as well. Thank you, to people like you, and the so called “kykypuolue”, which seems to be right up your alley mostly.

“Nah, in an Economics debate, I’d still take dead Milton over you or Finnsense”

I think Miltons monetarism is already yesterdays news. Of course, you are free to hang on to the good old days. But the train has already left the station – EVEN among the economists (so I’m told) – concerning Milton and his pal’s. Of course, it’s possible that Milton was right, and that monetarism was the “mother of all economic theories” but let me say that I doubt that.

I think it was just a theory, that fit the currents of time well. But, e.g. Keynes seems to be much more everlasting than good old Milton, who just had one uplift thanks to “genious” people like Reagan and Thatcher. Economic theory should – in order to be really great – be able to take into account changes in the surroundings.

“Often when non-libertarians speak of “freedom”, they’re instead speaking of “empowerment”.”

Without knowing the etymology of the word “empowerment”, I still think that most people – be they libertarians or not – mean “freedom” when they talk about “freedom”. What “freedom” means is a matter of debate. But “you, and your libertarian friends, do not have the MONOPOLY on the interpretation of that word, or do you?” to quote myself.

“In fact, freedom always seems to boil down to equivalence, which, for some reason is something freedom-loving individuals hate.

Do you mean equality?”

Whatever. What is your point? You FREEDOM-lovers simply cannot agree what the concept you so dearly love means. And EVERYTIME you FREEDOM-lovers define what the concept you – so much love – means, it’s actually an EQUALITY based definiton.

Equality w.r.t. taxes, be it poll tax or fix rate based.

Equality under law.

And so on…..

You FREEDOM-lovers are so equality-sensed, that communists would blush.

How would that be possible? They’d have to buy the road from the state, or my driveway from me.

For example, we need a state to fight pollution (a negative externality).

Myself and alot of other libertarians have no problem with the state managing pollution. I wouldn’t be allowed to shit on everyone’s property, there should be some laws about the spread of my shit (pollution) from my factory onto everyone else’s property. Although, here in Finland we have heavy state-control over the enviornment, yet we can’t even meet the Kyoto requirements. So you can’t just say “the state should run things and everything will be fine”.

It seems as if alot of people aren’t understanding libertarianism, and that’s not your fault, it’s the fault of the anarcho-libertarians who have kinda taken over the whole party and movement. You don’t know how many times I’ve heard people ask, “What should we do about the environment?” and an American libertarian reply, “Well the feds are our nation’s biggest polluter, let’s get rid of them” then they end their discussion about the environment.

But how would this change from a libertarian society to a welfare state society? We’re comparing libertarian freedom here and other ideology’s interpretation of freedom. I don’t see your point, use a real world example.

The same goes for the homeless person example. The things you did to get to where you are do not affect whether you are free or not. We might say the homeless person deserves to be unfree but we don’t doubt that he is unfree.

Okay, this is obviously where our definitions of freedom differ. You see this man as unfree, I see him as free. If he’s “unfree” according to you, it’s because he himself, and only himself, made himself this way.

Try this scenario: A guy in a free society shoots heroin 10 times a day and has serious problems because of it. Is he free or unfree? I say he’s free. You see him as unfree I guess?

As for your comment about the wealthy and the middle-class person, of course the wealthy person is more free. If you think he isn’t you have an idea of freedom that makes it hard to understand why freedom should be valuable.

Yes, you and I have different definitions of freedom. “Freedom” and “Free to do things like take fancy vacations” are two very different things.

They are pro-liberty because they think liberty is a core value around which one should build a society.

There’s more than one reason why libertarians are pro-liberty, the answer you gave is just one of many reasons.

They are against big government not because they think it is impractical, as you suggest, but because they think it is immoral that the government should interfere in your life and stop you doing what you want to do.

Libertarians are against big government for many reasons – I’m not sure if “immoral” is the best word to use but yeah, we don’t think that the state/government should interfere in our lives when we’re not harming others. But again, that’s just one of many reasons. Another reason is what I said earlier, that small government or no government is more efficient and better for society than big government.

The fact that you don’t understand this suggests that your own version of libertarianism has one member – you.

Dunno about that, I’m definitely not part of the anarcho-libertarian crowd. However there aren’t many of us “Post-Libertarians” (a word I recently heard and may start using more often) around.

Interesting discussion.

But the markets can fail. Or actually they always fail when left alone.

Somebody buys all the land around Phil’s house. Then he demands all Phil’s money – or perhaps even his workforce for a few decades – for his right to leave his premises. In a libertarian society Phil has no chance but to agree. This problems has to do with monopolies or, more in more general terms, scarcity power. Historically people have time and again been enslaved through this process; all you need is a monopoly of an essential resource like land, water, guns …

Other market failures have to do with such things as negative externalities and information. For example, we need a state to fight pollution (a negative externality). And we need democracy to decide on what to fight and how. Period. There’s no way going around this, unless we are prepared to give up our liberty.

Libertarians are, in that sense, dangerous, not just harmless fools.

Thomas, that’s a good point. If I’m not mistaken, the EU’s antitrust legislation was the basis for its action against Microsoft. Naturally, Microsoft would have liked to establish a monopoly in Europe, but I guess it was impeded somewhat in this case.

The United States also has antitrust legislation. It’s the only thing that prevented, for example, the (former) Big Three automakers from merging into the Big One. Instead, now, GM actually NEEDS the smaller Ford Motor Company—and the foreign imports—as competitors. Without them, GM would come dangerously close to violating antitrust regulation.

We can also note that antitrust legislation, by itself, is not the only answer to establishing a fair marketplace. The determining factor lies in how the legislation is written. We can easily predict the result, if such legislation is written by the companies themselves. That’s a problem in the United States—although, perhaps not with antitrust legislation per se.

Incidentally, american antitrust legislation is also the reason for why Microsoft NEEDS Linux. But, that’s not to say that Linux wouldn’t exist without antitrust legislation. Consider that if Microsoft were to raise its prices high enough, then it would automatically create marketshare for Linux. Perhaps this is proof that the world of software is NOT a natural monopoly—although it seems like it.

But, perhaps we can identify other industries which DO have potential for producing natural monopolies. In those cases, antitrust legislation might not be enough. There might need to be government involvement. Otherwise, a monopolizer could determine its own prices, without competition to keep things in-check.

The examples I gave are very good examples at showing what I was trying to show. If someone locks you in a room you are unfree regardless of whether you deserve to be locked in. You’re not seriously suggesting that whether you are free or not depends on whether someone is justified in taking away your freedom?

The same goes for the homeless person example. The things you did to get to where you are do not affect whether you are free or not. We might say the homeless person deserves to be unfree but we don’t doubt that he is unfree.

As for your comment about the wealthy and the middle-class person, of course the wealthy person is more free. If you think he isn’t you have an idea of freedom that makes it hard to understand why freedom should be valuable.

Finally, libertarians are pro-liberty. They are not pro-liberty because they think liberty has lots of nice effects. They are pro-liberty because they think liberty is a core value around which one should build a society. Liberty, of all good things, is the best. They are against big government not because they think it is impractical, as you suggest, but because they think it is immoral that the government should interfere in your life and stop you doing what you want to do. The fact that you don’t understand this suggests that your own version of libertarianism has one member – you.

First off, it’s not Nokia’s crappy wages, it’s Finland’s crappy wages. take a look at Nokia in the states. Secondly, there’s alot more to consider than salary when working for Nokia.