Or they could just expel Enewald - that'll cut their problems at a stroke.
I would be okay with that, as long we keep all kind of pseudo-socialists planners away from the party. If they want to build a socialist state, let them join Labour.
From what I can tell, you're not what I'd call a liberal in the sense of any of the various varieties of British Liberalism - I'm sure we could set up a Libertarian party for you though
Too much anarcho-capitalist butthurt in actual fact.
Sound like Whig party member to me For free-market and all
The Whigs most definitely were not liberals though - they can be considered the fore-runners of the development of the liberal philosophy but they're not actually part of it themselves. Witness, in fact, how most Whigs were left behind by political liberalism.
Ah, but how can you support the free market when you support a system that will inevitably lead to monopolies and the stifling of competition?
The Whigs most definitely were not liberals though - they can be considered the fore-runners of the development of the liberal philosophy but they're not actually part of it themselves. Witness, in fact, how most Whigs were left behind by political liberalism.
And let us not forget that the Whigs were massively protectionist for that matter.
That's all news to me...
Dear old Tanzhang is going all ad hominem since he have no real arguments?
I'm sure we could set up a Libertarian party for you though
So how will it inevitably lead to that? As I've said it is only the economics with much state intereference who will get monopolies either because the government issue them or because of varios regulations.
How do you know it will inevitably lead to that? The only monopoly creators I've seen are state issued monopolies and monopolies, duopoles or oligopoles creatd as an effect of regulations and protectionism.
So how will it inevitably lead to that? As I've said it is only the economics with much state intereference who will get monopolies either because the government issue them or because of varios regulations.
I don't argue twice with the dogmatic beyond redemption.
I suspect that there's only room for one Monster Raving Ego Party in this AAR, and I'll be damned if that role goes (once again) to the same DDP we all grew sick and tired of back in Blood and Iron.
I assume he's referring to the United States in the late 19th Century. Rockefeller/Carnegie/Vanderbilt and so on.
The free market is about competition, right? Survival of the fittest and all that jazz. And the inevitable outcome of such competition is one dominant player in each particular field (see: IBM, Microsoft, Enron, etc.) because that's what happens with competition - eventually something comes along that out-competes everyone else. Either that or you'd see what has happened in so many sectors - a cartel of major companies happily fixing prices to deny consumers choice and maintain the status quo.
Now the free marketeer response to that situation is that competition will deal with that problem as, if you have one big company with a monopoly exploiting it's position then sooner or later a smaller company will come along and compete more effectively and bring it down to size.
Except that, without competition regulations (e.g. a system where there are no external rules enforced by government) then there's nothing to stop the monopoly companies and cartels from using their financial, economic and market clout to strangle competition in the cradle to protect their position (witness Microsoft in the 80s and 90s before the big anti-competition lawsuits began). And with competition being prevented from ever being able to compete then the free market itself is no longer free.
That's why there's no such thing as a "free market" - in order for a market to be free the market itself has to have some kind of ground rules and external regulation to enforce those rules in order to make sure that it remains competitive.
In fact, sensible state involvement is the backbone of a healthy market.
And there it was high tarriff walls and the market was still regulated allthough in a lesser degree. And interstingley enough it didn't hurt the consumers
What is all this talk of microsoft and ibm?
What is all this talk of microsoft and ibm? You have to live in some fantasy world. Come back when you're back in 1949
I was thinking more along the lines of: if you give big business the power to make even bigger cartels and trusts, then they'll do it. What did Smith say about people of the same or similar trades meeting together?
IBM actually existed in 1949!