Total Posts:161|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Attention to all libertarians

NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 10:27:17 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
If you believe the libertarian movement is thriving and is doing just fine within the GOP, you are 100% incorrect. These facts will prove my statement:

- Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and other Christian Right organizations are thriving and doing very well within the GOP

- A fleet of socially conservative candidates such as Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum have emerged in the GOP field (especially Ted Cruz)

- Rand Paul (son of well-known libertarian Ron Paul) is currently at 1% in many polls in the past and still scores low in current polls

- Ron Paul lost against Mitt Romney back in 2012

If these facts aren't enough to convince you that libertarianism is not thriving (especially in the GOP), then I don't know what will. Perhaps, you can keep on being delusional.
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 11:02:55 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
The Libertarian movement was what spawned the creation of the teaparty movement, which has been effective in making the party more fiscally conservative. Other right wingers have jumped on to the teaparty bandwagon, but if you look at the promise from America they created, it's all stuff calling for things to be more economically conservative, not socially conservative.

Also, Ted Cruz isn't far off from being a Libertarian. He likely has my vote in the primaries. I'd prefer Rand Paul, but Cruz has broader support. Libertarians don't need to be the biggest part of the Republican Party to influence it. Republicans can not win elections without libertarians, and in fact lose more often than they win if a libertarian candidate is on the ballot in local elections.

The fact that Republicans can not win without libertarians, means we have a lot of influence on how Republican candidates craft their policies. They know that if they are the neocon big government republican type candidate, they risk losing the libertarian vote they need to win. They also know that if they are too socially conservative, they'll be punished. This is why you see the Republican Party, slowly becoming more socially conservative.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 11:04:49 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
The Republican Party is a big tent party, and different and conflicting views can exist together.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 3:55:16 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 10:27:17 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
If you believe the libertarian movement is thriving and is doing just fine within the GOP, you are 100% incorrect. These facts will prove my statement:

- Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and other Christian Right organizations are thriving and doing very well within the GOP

- A fleet of socially conservative candidates such as Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum have emerged in the GOP field (especially Ted Cruz)

- Rand Paul (son of well-known libertarian Ron Paul) is currently at 1% in many polls in the past and still scores low in current polls

- Ron Paul lost against Mitt Romney back in 2012

If these facts aren't enough to convince you that libertarianism is not thriving (especially in the GOP), then I don't know what will. Perhaps, you can keep on being delusional.

I think that Liberty based candidates could do very well in the democrat party as well. Many democrats agree on foreign policy and personal rights. In democrat debates, it would be great to hear Bernie and Hillary challenged from a free market angle by a non-warmonger, or religious zealot.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 4:20:07 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 3:55:16 AM, Chang29 wrote:
I think that Liberty based candidates could do very well in the democrat party as well.
The Democratic party has never been a welcome environment for dissenters of any sort other than the "good ol' boy" Blue Dog types (who move in a totalitarian direction from the Democratic base, not a libertarian one).

This election, both parties are terrible (And no, Ted Cruz is not "close to being a libertarian." He wants to nationalize women's bodies and marriage, he's backed federal intervention in legal-marijuana states, and he does not support the free movement of labor across borders.)

But some elections, there have been Republican candidates who were in favor of liberty, (Barry Goldwater's campaign is at the root of a libertarian movement being anything more than just a quiet wing of the SDS organization that was hidden from public view.) There has never been such a Democratic candidate. There's never even been a Democratic candidate for president who paid lip service to the libertarian movement. Most Republican elections have at least three. You don't trust an auto dealership, but you don't go shopping for a car at a place that doesn't even sell cars.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 6:30:21 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

There is no true inequity.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 6:47:58 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 6:30:21 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

There is no true inequity.

Shut up.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 6:53:00 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 10:27:17 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
If you believe the libertarian movement is thriving and is doing just fine within the GOP, you are 100% incorrect. These facts will prove my statement:

- Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and other Christian Right organizations are thriving and doing very well within the GOP

- A fleet of socially conservative candidates such as Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum have emerged in the GOP field (especially Ted Cruz)

- Rand Paul (son of well-known libertarian Ron Paul) is currently at 1% in many polls in the past and still scores low in current polls

- Ron Paul lost against Mitt Romney back in 2012

If these facts aren't enough to convince you that libertarianism is not thriving (especially in the GOP), then I don't know what will. Perhaps, you can keep on being delusional.

This is like, the ONE thing I believe we will ever agree upon. And that says a lot.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 6:55:49 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

More like Libertarians overvalue privatized tyranny and ignore social inequity.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 6:57:29 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 6:47:58 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:30:21 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

There is no true inequity.

Shut up.

Women are biologically weaker than men.

We have different coloured skin and hair, blood types, etc...

There is no true inequity.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:08:36 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 6:57:29 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:47:58 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:30:21 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

There is no true inequity.

Shut up.

Women are biologically weaker than men.

Physically? Yes. In a GENERAL sense? Yes. But this does not apply to all men and women, seeing as there are plenty of women who are stronger than a lot men.

We have different coloured skin and hair, blood types, etc...

Does the color of our skin and hair somehow make us inherently different in other aspects of life? Can a blonde be just as capable of the same things as someone with dark hair?

There is no true inequity.

Inequity exists all around you. People face inequity because of the very things you mentioned. People face inequity because of their sex, gender, race, religion, nationality, disability etc...
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:11:54 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:08:36 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:57:29 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:47:58 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:30:21 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

There is no true inequity.

Shut up.

Women are biologically weaker than men.

Physically? Yes. In a GENERAL sense? Yes. But this does not apply to all men and women, seeing as there are plenty of women who are stronger than a lot men.

We have different coloured skin and hair, blood types, etc...

Does the color of our skin and hair somehow make us inherently different in other aspects of life? Can a blonde be just as capable of the same things as someone with dark hair?

There is no true inequity.

Inequity exists all around you. People face inequity because of the very things you mentioned. People face inequity because of their sex, gender, race, religion, nationality, disability etc...

Sorry, I meant to say equality. No true equality.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:35:24 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 10:27:17 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
If you believe the libertarian movement is thriving and is doing just fine within the GOP, you are 100% incorrect. These facts will prove my statement:
I don't think that any libertarian actually thinks that, lol.
- Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and other Christian Right organizations are thriving and doing very well within the GOP

- A fleet of socially conservative candidates such as Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum have emerged in the GOP field (especially Ted Cruz)
All Republicans are socially conservative.
- Rand Paul (son of well-known libertarian Ron Paul) is currently at 1% in many polls in the past and still scores low in current polls
He's not a Libertarian.
- Ron Paul lost against Mitt Romney back in 2012
Neither is he, though he's closer to the ideal than his son.
If these facts aren't enough to convince you that libertarianism is not thriving (especially in the GOP), then I don't know what will. Perhaps, you can keep on being delusional.

There are no Libertarians running for office outside of the Libertarian party (and even that is debatable).
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:37:04 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 4:20:07 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/9/2015 3:55:16 AM, Chang29 wrote:
I think that Liberty based candidates could do very well in the democrat party as well.
The Democratic party has never been a welcome environment for dissenters of any sort other than the "good ol' boy" Blue Dog types (who move in a totalitarian direction from the Democratic base, not a libertarian one).

This election, both parties are terrible (And no, Ted Cruz is not "close to being a libertarian." He wants to nationalize women's bodies and marriage, he's backed federal intervention in legal-marijuana states, and he does not support the free movement of labor across borders.)

But some elections, there have been Republican candidates who were in favor of liberty, (Barry Goldwater's campaign is at the root of a libertarian movement being anything more than just a quiet wing of the SDS organization that was hidden from public view.) There has never been such a Democratic candidate. There's never even been a Democratic candidate for president who paid lip service to the libertarian movement. Most Republican elections have at least three. You don't trust an auto dealership, but you don't go shopping for a car at a place that doesn't even sell cars.

I'm very glad that I didn't mention Goldwater in my post. I almost did, but, if I did, I would look like such a copycat.

Kudos, you Objectivist scum. Welcome back.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 9:50:10 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 6:55:49 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

More like Libertarians overvalue privatized tyranny and ignore social inequity.

Well, I was trying to be conciliatory by not stating the extent to which Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 12:30:05 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:08:36 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
Physically? Yes. In a GENERAL sense? Yes. But this does not apply to all men and women, seeing as there are plenty of women who are stronger than a lot men
I think a woman needs to have three times as much muscle to account for the added strength men have through expending testesterone. Granted, most men are not capable or trained on how to harness the full potential of their body.

Inequity exists all around you. People face inequity because of the very things you mentioned. People face inequity because of their sex, gender, race, religion, nationality, disability etc...
I believe inequity exists, but not that is nessecarily a bad thing either. I constantly say this too, but the best means to reducing inequity is to take away the system that can create legislation and influence general public opinion to make things unfair to begin with. That system is the state.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 12:34:31 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 11:02:55 PM, Wylted wrote:
Also, Ted Cruz isn't far off from being a Libertarian. He likely has my vote in the primaries. I'd prefer Rand Paul, but Cruz has broader support.

I am with shabshoral here. Those are hardly real libertarians. Even the "libertarians" in the libertarian party are not true adherents to the political and philisophical movement of libertarianism. Libertarians generally believe in constitutional establishment and a military to protect the rights guaranteed under the constitution, which is in their opinion the maximum level liberty can be maximized. Anarchists disagree.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 12:37:27 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Although I believe in syndicalist defense , so I accept that strong militia's need to exist independent of any establishment. Even though that seems very similar to an established military protecting the independence of an established libertarian state, it works in practice vastly different.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 1:14:03 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 11:02:55 PM, Wylted wrote:
The Libertarian movement was what spawned the creation of the teaparty movement, which has been effective in making the party more fiscally conservative. Other right wingers have jumped on to the teaparty bandwagon, but if you look at the promise from America they created, it's all stuff calling for things to be more economically conservative, not socially conservative.

Also, Ted Cruz isn't far off from being a Libertarian.

May be fiscally, but socially he is nothing close to libertarian and is a hidden theocratic. He also has weird ideas such as the need to use the Fed to enforce marijuana laws.

Be careful supporting someone who wants to dismantle government then throw everyone in jail. And what is up with his recent statement that he would carpet bomb ISIS, a complete about face. He is willing to sell his ideals for votes
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:45:48 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 6:55:49 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

More like Libertarians overvalue privatized tyranny and ignore social inequity.

Privatized tyranny is less likely to happen in a truly free market, because there is too much competition to allow it to happen. Right now in your attempt because of a lack of competition you do see tyranny in drug manufacturers and banking.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:52:30 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 1:14:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 11:02:55 PM, Wylted wrote:
The Libertarian movement was what spawned the creation of the teaparty movement, which has been effective in making the party more fiscally conservative. Other right wingers have jumped on to the teaparty bandwagon, but if you look at the promise from America they created, it's all stuff calling for things to be more economically conservative, not socially conservative.

Also, Ted Cruz isn't far off from being a Libertarian.

May be fiscally, but socially he is nothing close to libertarian and is a hidden theocratic. He also has weird ideas such as the need to use the Fed to enforce marijuana laws.

Be careful supporting someone who wants to dismantle government then throw everyone in jail. And what is up with his recent statement that he would carpet bomb ISIS, a complete about face. He is willing to sell his ideals for votes

With economic freedom comes social freedom. The more economically free a country is, the more socially free they usually become.

I'm aware of his social views. The libertarian party is split on abortion laws, I'm a libertarian that is anti-immigration. I believe foreign policy (which I include immigration in) needs to be more utilitarian than sticking to any preset ideological views. If open borders make our country better in some measurable way, I'm all for it, if it makes it worse in measurable ways, I'm against it.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 4:11:58 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 2:45:48 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:55:49 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

More like Libertarians overvalue privatized tyranny and ignore social inequity.

Privatized tyranny is less likely to happen in a truly free market

But it did happen many decades ago when, you know, monopolies were perfectly legal.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 4:15:48 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 4:11:58 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:45:48 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:55:49 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

More like Libertarians overvalue privatized tyranny and ignore social inequity.

Privatized tyranny is less likely to happen in a truly free market

But it did happen many decades ago when, you know, monopolies were perfectly legal.

Actually monopolies are caused by over regulation. When a market is over regulated it prevents new people from entering the field. It also hurts current businesses by making it more expensive to operate. After Glass Steagull most banks went from being mom and pop, to being multinational monsters, the same thing happened to food and drug companies after the FDA came into being. There is a direct correlation between regulation and lack of competition. Regulation is the opposite of free market, and in fact sometimes the government goes out of it's way to intentionally create monopolies, like it did with electric companies and other utilities.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 4:17:29 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 4:15:48 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:11:58 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:45:48 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:55:49 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

More like Libertarians overvalue privatized tyranny and ignore social inequity.

Privatized tyranny is less likely to happen in a truly free market

But it did happen many decades ago when, you know, monopolies were perfectly legal.

Actually monopolies are caused by over regulation.

Explain to us how over-regulation caused the monopolies of yesteryear. I'll grab my popcorn.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 4:23:29 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 4:17:29 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:15:48 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:11:58 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:45:48 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:55:49 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

More like Libertarians overvalue privatized tyranny and ignore social inequity.

Privatized tyranny is less likely to happen in a truly free market

But it did happen many decades ago when, you know, monopolies were perfectly legal.

Actually monopolies are caused by over regulation.

Explain to us how over-regulation caused the monopolies of yesteryear. I'll grab my popcorn.

I just did. Over regulation makes the barrier of entry harder to meet. It also increases the amount of money needed to operate profitably. Thus it decreases the amount of competition in a field. Not only did I explain this already, but I gave examples of the FDA and Glass Steagull which did exactly that with the banking and food industries going from being dominated by small businesses to being dominated by big businesses.

It's in this same thread where I explained that.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 4:33:37 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 4:23:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:17:29 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:15:48 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:11:58 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:45:48 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:55:49 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

More like Libertarians overvalue privatized tyranny and ignore social inequity.

Privatized tyranny is less likely to happen in a truly free market

But it did happen many decades ago when, you know, monopolies were perfectly legal.

Actually monopolies are caused by over regulation.

Explain to us how over-regulation caused the monopolies of yesteryear. I'll grab my popcorn.

I just did. Over regulation makes the barrier of entry harder to meet. It also increases the amount of money needed to operate profitably. Thus it decreases the amount of competition in a field. Not only did I explain this already, but I gave examples of the FDA and Glass Steagull which did exactly that with the banking and food industries going from being dominated by small businesses to being dominated by big businesses.

Not really. That's just your theory which is not backed up by evidence.

Let's start with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Explain what regulation at the time caused these monopolies to prop up.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 4:53:19 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 4:33:37 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:23:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:17:29 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:15:48 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2015 4:11:58 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:45:48 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:55:49 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 12/9/2015 6:27:50 AM, Death23 wrote:
Libertarians overvalue freedom and under-appreciate inequity.

More like Libertarians overvalue privatized tyranny and ignore social inequity.

Privatized tyranny is less likely to happen in a truly free market

But it did happen many decades ago when, you know, monopolies were perfectly legal.

Actually monopolies are caused by over regulation.

Explain to us how over-regulation caused the monopolies of yesteryear. I'll grab my popcorn.

I just did. Over regulation makes the barrier of entry harder to meet. It also increases the amount of money needed to operate profitably. Thus it decreases the amount of competition in a field. Not only did I explain this already, but I gave examples of the FDA and Glass Steagull which did exactly that with the banking and food industries going from being dominated by small businesses to being dominated by big businesses.

Not really. That's just your theory which is not backed up by evidence.

How often do you have to see the pattern of regulation and decreased competition before it's no longer a theory? You're like the guy who keeps jumping off a two story building and breaking his leg, who needs more evidence the fall is what caused his leg to break.

Let's start with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Explain what regulation at the time caused these monopolies to prop up.

What monopoly are you talking about? Like the train companies who were heavily subsidized by the government so they had an unfair competitive advantage over their competition? Which monopoly are you talking about?

And what exactly are you trying to imply. If all monopolies are bad, can't they have multiple causes? If over regulation is one cause, why not stop that, while also stopping the other causes?
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 5:13:38 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 4:53:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
What monopoly are you talking about? Like the train companies who were heavily subsidized by the government so they had an unfair competitive advantage over their competition? Which monopoly are you talking about?

And what exactly are you trying to imply. If all monopolies are bad, can't they have multiple causes? If over regulation is one cause, why not stop that, while also stopping the other causes?

You didn't answer my question. What regulation caused the monopolies at the time. Your argument is that over-regulation is the cause of monopolies. So prove it. How has regulation caused the monopolies prior to the Sherman Antitrust Act.