Libertarians- why does anyone take them seriously?

[sarahj]

I inferred it. Quite simply if no humans laboured, the human race would quicky die off. Ergo, even in a society where consumer goods are available to all, humans are still forced* to labour out of economic necessity.

[SIZE=1]*compelled through necessity, not by force[/SIZE]

I assumed (fairly I think) that by forced you meant through the use of force.

Of course people are compelled by necessity to do some sort of labour in order to be able to eat. What has that got to do with anything though? It's common sense.

Your idea is easily demolished once you stop and ask how firms make their money. If the goal of your firm is to expand your market share, the only method is to outcompete your rivals for customers (customers who are free not to purchase your goods).

I agree with your second sentence - however you claim this demolishes my argument. I really don't see how - it doesn't eliminate the facts that firms plan and that the closer one gets to a monopoly (though you don't believe in them) the more planned a sector (or combination of sectors, depending on the diversification of the firm) becomes.

[DS-09]

Be careful 20,000 miles, she's got a baking pin

[Red Boyneside]

Your idea is easily demolished once you stop and ask how firms make their money. If the goal of your firm is to expand your market share, the only method is to outcompete your rivals for customers (customers who are free not to purchase your goods).

And when you outcompete your rivals more wealth i concentrated in fewer hands, thus centralising wealth and centralising power. Liberty under capitalism means liberty for those who own. The more you own, the more your liberty. The less government control over capitalism, the more liberty for the owners of the means of production - but less for the majority - those who don't. We find ourselves reverting to a form of feudalism where the owners of property call the shots directly rather than via governments and what is this only the real road to serfdom for the majority of the human race?

[20000miles]

You are deliberately muddying the waters. You said "individual" not town or neighbourhood. For the record there must be some delineation for a secession to take place such as linguistic, historical or cultural. Otherwise you'd have Counties trying to leave Ireland which would give rise to chaos. Bottom line is that to suggest a self governing club of individuals with individuals being entitled to leave is madness.

Something has to apply. Individuals can't indulge secession.

I like this Hoppe quote:

For instance, during the second half of the seventeenth century, Germany consisted of some 234 countries, 51 free cities, and 1,500 independent knightly manors. By the early nineteenth century, the total number of the three had fallen to below 50, and by 1871 unification had been achieved.

[sarahj]

Be careful 20,000 miles, she's got a baking pin

Are you stalking me?!

[20000miles]

I assumed (fairly I think) that by forced you meant through the use of force.

Well that is how I usually define it. But clearly by your statement "Dying because you can't afford to eat is not an option. Therefore you are forced into work." you implied that by "force" you meant "compelled by necessity. Using this definition then you are forced to work in any scenario where economic scarcity exists. Using this fact as a critique of capitalism is unwarranted.

I agree with your second sentence - however you claim this demolishes my argument. I really don't see how - it doesn't eliminate the facts that firms plan and that the closer one gets to a monopoly (though you don't believe in them) the more planned a sector (or combination of sectors, depending on the diversification of the firm) becomes.

I do beleive in monopolies, however we apparently disagree on what is and what isn't one. Also, you still haven't showed how firms clamouring to satisfy consumers' desires could possibly lead to impoverishment.

And when you outcompete your rivals more wealth i concentrated in fewer hands, thus centralising wealth and centralising power. Liberty under capitalism means liberty for those who own. The more you own, the more your liberty. The less government control over capitalism, the more liberty for the owners of the means of production - but less for the majority - those who don't. We find ourselves reverting to a form of feudalism where the owners of property call the shots directly rather than via governments and what is this only the real road to serfdom for the majority of the human race?

Centralising power? What power? Can a large firm compel you to purchase their goods any more than a small one. And can a large firm forcefully prevent new entrants into the industry?

[Informer]

If the OP is so concerned with freedom, then I assume he would disagree with his/her party collegue, Claire Daly, and her assertion that the Gvoernment should be simply taking the wealth of the likes of Denis O Brien, Michael Smurfit etc to artificially buy our way out of the crisis ?

[DS-09]

Are you stalking me?!

No, i'm subscribed to this thread. Why would I be stalking ye? Silly silly girl

[stringjack]

Well that is how I usually define it. But clearly by your statement "Dying because you can't afford to eat is not an option. Therefore you are forced into work." you implied that by "force" you meant "compelled by necessity. Using this definition then you are forced to work in any scenario where economic scarcity exists. Using this fact as a critique of capitalism is unwarranted.

You need to be careful here - if other people have worked, and produced food, and are using coercive institutions to guard the food so that one can't simply take it, then it's as much the coercive institutions that are creating the necessity as it is the natural scarcity.

[sarahj]

Well that is how I usually define it. But clearly by your statement "Dying because you can't afford to eat is not an option. Therefore you are forced into work." you implied that by "force" you meant "compelled by necessity. Using this definition then you are forced to work in any scenario where economic scarcity exists. Using this fact as a critique of capitalism is unwarranted.

No no no. Working to grow or harvest food or fetch water for yourself and/or others is COMPLETELY different to working under a contract as a labourer to line the ppockets of one with property. Completely.

I do beleive in monopolies, however we apparently disagree on what is and what isn't one. Also, you still haven't showed how firms clamouring to satisfy consumers' desires could possibly lead to impoverishment.

I showed how it led to centralisation of decision making. Irish Liberty Forum (and yourself I do believe) are the ones that believe that centralisation of decision making (ie central planning) leads to poverty.

Centralising power? What power? Can a large firm compel you to purchase their goods any more than a small one. And can a large firm forcefully prevent new entrants into the industry?

A large firm can compel you to purchase their goods if there is not other way to get them and you need them.

Obviously - they're known as barriers to entry. Control of resources being the main one. For example, if a firm owns all the gold in the world, then noone else can start up a company making things outta gold.

Other barriers include:
* Advertising - Incumbent firms can seek to make it difficult for new competitors by spending heavily on advertising that new firms would find more difficult to afford. This is known as the market power theory of advertising.[2] Here, established firms use of advertising creates a consumer perceived difference in its brand from other brands to a degree that consumers see its brand is a slightly different product.[2] Since the brand is seen as a slightly different product, products from existing or potential competitors cannot be perfectly substituted in place of the established firm's brand.[2] This makes it hard for new competitors to gain consumer acceptance.[2]
* Control of resources - If a single firm has control of a resource essential for a certain industry, then other firms are unable to compete in the industry.
* Cost advantages independent of scale - Proprietary technology, know-how, favorable access to raw materials, favorable geographic locations, learning curve cost advantages.
* Customer loyalty - Large incumbent firms may have existing customers loyal to established products. The presence of established strong brands within a market can be a barrier to entry in this case.
* Distributor agreements - Exclusive agreements with key distributors or retailers can make it difficult for other manufacturers to enter the industry.
* Economy of scale - Large, experienced firms can generally produce goods at lower costs than small, inexperienced firms. Cost advantages can sometimes be quickly reversed by advances in technology. For example, the development of personal computers has allowed small companies to make use of database and communications technology which was once extremely expensive and only available to large corporations.
* Globalization - Entry of global players into local market make entry of local players into the market difficult.
* Government regulations - It may make entry more difficult or impossible. In the extreme case, a government may make competition illegal and establish a statutory monopoly. Requirements for licenses and permits may raise the investment needed to enter a market, creating an effective barrier to entry.
* Inelastic demand - A strategy of selling at a lower price in order to penetrate markets. This is ineffective with price-insensitive consumers.
* Intellectual property - Potential entrant requires access to equally efficient production technology as the combatant monopolist in order to freely enter a market. Patents give a firm the legal right to stop other firms producing a product for a given period of time, and so restrict entry into a market. Patents are intended to encourage invention and technological progress by offering this financial incentive. Similarly, trademarks and servicemarks may represent a kind of entry barrier for a particular product or service if the market is dominated by one or a few well-known names.
* Investment - That is especially in industries with economies of scale and/or natural monopolies.
* Network effect - When a good or service has a value that depends on the number of existing customers, then competing players may have difficulties in entering a market where an established company has already captured a significant user base.
* Predatory pricing - The practice of a dominant firm selling at a loss to make competition more difficult for new firms that cannot suffer such losses, as a large dominant firm with large lines of credit or cash reserves can. It is illegal in most places; however, it is difficult to prove. See antitrust.
* Restrictive practices, such as air transport agreements that make it difficult for new airlines to obtain landing slots at some airports.
* Research and development - Some products, such as microprocessors, require a large upfront investment in technology which will deter potential entrants.
* Supplier agreements - Exclusive agreements with key links in the supply chain can make it difficult for other manufacturers to enter an industry.
* Sunk costs - Sunk costs cannot be recovered if a firm decides to leave a market. Sunk costs therefore increase the risk and deter entry.
* Vertical integration - A firm's coverage of more than one level of production, while pursuing practices which favor its own operations at each level, is often cited as an entry barrier

Barriers to entry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia