Think you are a Libertarian?

originally posted by: ZiggyMojo
The big businesses became big businesses because of government! If the government wasn't involved, the free market would have had answers to mega corps like Wal-Mart, long before Wal-Mart could drive the little guy out

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You couldn't substantiate your assertion that Wal-mart's growth can be attributed to government intervention, specifically intervention by the federal government, so you immediately went the safer route and started talking about Monsanto and the abomination that is intellectual property law.

You are painfully naive and what you keep touting as proof of the validity of your opinions, in most cases, amounts to little more than simplistic interpretations.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It's pretty simple, NAFTA Free trade agreements and the heavy hand of government destroyed the small businesses. They don't have the capital to compete with mega giants like Wallmart with all the regulations the government constantly comes out with that favors big business.

Minimum wage hikes is another example. Wallmart can afford it and actually lobbies for it. They know it would help take out the smaller start up retail business that don't have the capital.

a reply to: theantediluvian

No man. Just No. You've proved over and over that you really don't know what you're talking about. I never touted anything as proof of my opinion.. I simply stated the facts. The little guy has been driven out by government regulation that caters to those corporations better represented by CASH.

If you don't see that, you are the naive one.

I was using "Wal-Mart" the megacorp as an example.. If you want me to go hog-wild and cite regulation or the confirmed $1 Billion dollars in government subsidies that has helped Wallyworld expand to its current status.. I can do that.. but I just figured it was pretty common knowledge to people who speak as though they know something about how the government handles corporate regulation.

You just said yourself that the government legislation concerning Monsanto is an abomination.. You think it stops there? Give me a break man.. Really.

You continue to dodge the actual point of the whole post to divert attention to a single detail.. It doesn't even change the point I made. A point that I know you can't deny..

The 1% can have a laissez faire stance on financial regulation, but it is the government that CATERS to and regulates FOR corporate cronies. The government has regulated the little guy out of the equation because the government is made up of the corporate suits.. That is the issue. Small businesses do not have the representation that a multi-billion dollar company does in the political theater.

Regardless..

I still don't know what you're arguing? Your opening post was dismantled in a few sentences.. so you're just continuing so you can stroke your own ego and express your disgust with a party of differing views?

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: theantediluvian

It's pretty simple, NAFTA Free trade agreements and the heavy hand of government destroyed the small businesses. They don't have the capital to compete with mega giants like Wallmart with all the regulations the government constantly comes out with that favors big business.

Minimum wage hikes is another example. Wallmart can afford it and actually lobbies for it. They know it would help take out the smaller start up retail business that don't have the capital.

What? NAFTA wasn't in effect until 1994 and by then Wal-mart already had over 2200 stores in the U.S. 20 years later they have roughly twice that and in 1974 they had about 100. It's also worth noting that 80% of Wal-mart's products come from China, not Mexico.

I should also mention that according to the Libertarian Party:

The twin pillars of a sane foreign policy are:

(1) Building positive relationships, with an emphasis on free trade, and

(2) Avoiding negative relationships, with an emphasis on military non-intervention.

source - Libertarian Party's Foreign Policy page

You think these people aren't globalists? Read that policy page.

Also, while I'm at it, you are aware that more than 100 million customers shop at Wal-mart every week? Think about that. I wouldn't be surprised if they supported a minimum wage hike within reason, since only about 2% of their workforce makes minimum wage and they know that any minimum wage hike translates to many of those 100 million consumers a week having a couple extra bucks to blow at Wal-mart. Wal-mart doesn't need a minimum wage hike to drive local businesses under, more than 96% of Americans already live within 20 miles of a Wal-mart and 90% live within 15 miles.

Which brings up yet another point. In the magical "unregulated free market" are all of these consumers are going to magically become conscientious shoppers and do a better job of voting with their dollars than they do voting with their ballots? No. They're going to continue to shop at the place where they can get a box of Chinese cookies for $0.88 on one aisle and wobble over to a rack and get the XXXXL pair of Chinese made sweatpants on the clearance rack for $4.98.

My name is Rand Paul I'm vehemently against government taxation, but I'm largely funded by billionaires that have benefited from corporate welfare.

a reply to: ZiggyMojo

You continue to dodge the actual point of the whole post to divert attention to a single detail.. It doesn't even change the point I made. A point that I know you can't deny..

The 1% can have a laissez faire stance on financial regulation, but it is the government that CATERS to and regulates FOR corporate cronies. The government has regulated the little guy out of the equation because the government is made up of the corporate suits.. That is the issue. Small businesses do not have the representation that a multi-billion dollar company does in the political theater.

Regardless..

I still don't know what you're arguing? Your opening post was dismantled in a few sentences.. so you're just continuing so you can stroke your own ego and express your disgust with a party of differing views?

You keep saying "dismantled" as if that's going to make it true. I don't know how much more clear I can be. Maybe I should limit this discussion to the Libertarian Party so that we're not arguing semantics again.

The Libertarian Party's policies are premised on invalid, heterodox economic theory. In order for these policies to represent viable solutions, the underlying economic theory must be sound — and it's not.

When you're not indulging in this fantasy of modern American libertarianism being synonymous with classical liberalism, you're continually expressing the same statements of opinion over and over. I get it! You believe that in the absence of the government intervention, small business would be able to compete against multi-billion dollar corporations.

I don't agree. I think you're naive to think that government intervention represents the only factor or even the largest one. I'm familiar with the seminal works of Mises, Rothbard and others — praxeology and the action axiom are nonsense. Do you want to argue against the eminence of these economists among 20th century and contemporary American libertarian thinkers? Are you arguing that what you promote is not reliant on Austrian economic theory?

By this point, I was really hoping to be getting into issues like marketization, immigration and globalism, abolishing social welfare programs, the environment, etc.