Can any Libertarians help me understand these concepts?

OK, then go invent a new atom smasher in your basement, how about you invent the cure for cancer in your garage, more conservative FANTASIES abdout "pulling up your bootstraps" laughable BS.

 

If that was the case, then each city would have multiple competing water companies, power companies, etc.

The simple fact remains that in certain industries infrastructure costs means that you can't really have competition.

 

Mssrs. Hewlett and Packard in their garage.
Steve Jobs & Mike Wozniak in the basement.
Michael Dell in his college dorm room.
Sam Walton in a decrepit "Benjamin Franklin" store.

 

With regards to monopolies, most monopolies exist because corporations lobby government officials for preferential treatment that shuts out competitors. If the government didn't have so many barriers to competition, that company could do nothing to stop competitors other than buy them all out. However, if they're wealthy enough to buy out all their competition people must really like their product, to the point they won't buy anyone else's.

There is of course the possibility of ending up with huge megaconglomerates that have bought out everyone else. While I'm not sure whether or not that would be the eventual outcome, to stop such a thing would require to somehow define how big a corporation is "too big". Imposing such a restriction carries dangerous implications if that definition is skewed (which it will be, in all likelihood). Of course, for a monopoly like that to happen, the various company execs would have to collaborate instead of trying to to steal each others profits - and considering how much a money hog those guys are, how likely is that?

There's always an inherent element of risk in capitalism because it grows organically - you just have to accept that, and realize there isn't any better system (hard to believe, I know).

 

"...each city would have multiple competing water companies, power companies..."

Taxcutter says:
At one time (back about a century ago) there were. Governments decided it would be better to have "regulated monopolies" where rates are controlled but at a set profit margin, and there would be no duplication of infrastructure. Whether that makes for a good deal for consumers can be debated.

 

Whereas this is a typical Ron Paul supporter post - and an excellent example of why RP and Liberatrians are thrilled when they get say.... one percent of the vote. Talk about elitist BS combined with cult-follower mentality!
So if someone doesn't agree with and understand everything His Highness Mr. Paul says, they are attacked. Well junior, those of us who don't hold our political rallies in mom's basement, realize that it is extremely rare for any voter to agree with a politician on everything. And that there are a lot of issues that really aren't that important to some voters. Most (normal) people prioritize and usually vote based on the issues most important to them.
Shocking, I know.

You may now continue stomping your little feeties and informing Falcon63 that he won't be getting his secret decoder ring or club membership because he failed to remember the name of the furry little animals Harry Mudd brought onto the Enterprise in episode 22....

Falcon: Like you there is much I liked about Ron Paul. Probably not nearly as much as you like but still, he was a refreshing breath of honesty and common sense on several issues. Would I vote for the guy? Nope. Because I don't believe Libertarian concepts work in real life. There has never been nor is there now, a country where (what most Libertarians have explained to me) its worked well for the majority of a large nation. Not in America, not anywhere else. I do think some of the concepts are great, but the majority of economic and political concepts remind me of communism in that they are dependent on no one ever doing anything wrong, abusing power, people, the environment etc... Good luck with that.

 

Not a fact, not just a possibility exactly, but more than anything a likelihood.

 

So you can't gaurantee it? So then I'd prefer to tax them instead, start a Roosevelt-like infrastructure program and GAURANTEE that the jobs are PURPOSELY created INSIDE THE USA. Even if it's only for a few decades...

 

If it came down to it... yes. Who is to say whether or not there would be enough room for a second company? That's roughly suggesting that 3,000,000 different businesses that involve busing people around in a single would be solvent or that were will be only restaurant for millions.

 

I see another I love libertarians but I could never vote for them because they are craaaaaazy. So cute, your moms basement comment, and your libertarians are communists. Very cute.

Please explain to me why voting for the status quo, and continuing to give power to the same two parties that have broken the system will help. Please, I am all ears, I am waiting to know how voting for the same corruption year after year helps America. Now go back to your TV, your internet, or wherever you get fed your information and quit thinking once more.

 

Yes, anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is an idiot, apparently. In the 6 months that I was gone, you went from being a thoughtful arguments to cantankerous positions in which you rely almost entirely on ad hominem against opponents who can't defend themselves.

I have never seen this reasoning behind the adoption of legal tender laws. Can you point me to any articles which show significant outrcry from merchants demanding that government protect them from the alleged "thousands" of minters and coiners that existed prior to legal tender laws? I think you made this up! It doesn't even make sense, given that not all currencies, or forms of money, are counted by weight. A merchant could just as easily insist on coins from highly reputed coiners, or even warehouse certificates if the weight of the coins are in question.

Allowing the government to say what is or is not legal tender opens the door to enormous abuse, as was seen after 1862 with a number of economic collapses.

I note that it did not authorize Congress to be the sole coiner of money, or even to decide what is money. Legal tender is an usurpation of the right of individuals to decide what is and what is not money.

That is ridiculous. It is not as if governments have a magical power, fashioned out of their ability to create legal tender laws, such that only they can make something that can never be counterfeited or something that only they can regulate.

So, don't take coins that you don't recognize. It is the right of any individual to decide what he will take in trade. If you are uncertain, and yet want to conduct the trade, get out the scales. That you want the government to protect you from yourself at the cost of the rights and liberties of others does not make those who want to protect their rights "idiotic" as you claim. Money is a commodity, like anything else, and those companies who provide that commodity can be regulated in the marketplace like any other companies. It's not some magical thing that only government can manage. If anything, government is a terrible manager of money, using it's power to centrally plan money to cause all sorts of grief for the public and enrich the plutocracy.

Which means that the Constitution allows for government usurpation of the rights of the people. Unlike you, I'm not stuck on the hobgoblin of consistency of devotion to the Constitution. We are far better off with a free market in money than with government control of what is money, and the Constitution can be torn up if it says otherwise (which is arguable that it does.)

First, there may not be "thousands" as you claim. Second, it's not "in fact" that most would be different. Somehow, people manage to buy products everyday that are clear about the ingredients and the volume, and it's only rarely that a company comes along and stiffs people on one or the other. You think that only government can be careful about money; I allege that people should have the choice. Now, explain why those who want a choice are idiots, and you are the great mind among idiots for saying otherwise.

 

You get angry that you are attacked some people, and then go on to attack people. Why not take the high road? It seems that if you choose to live in a cesspool, you shouldn't be surprised when everything around you looks like crap.

 

Let me clarify some things:

1. The person to whom I replied, absolutely lambasted the OP because they had the gall to ask how converting back to the gold standard might be accomplished. I don't recall whether it was you who threw such the fit but your post has the same tenor. This cult-like "You must be one with the Borg" all-or-nothing position is not unusual among Ron Paul supporters I have seen on this board and it absolutely destroys the credibility of Libertarians when these kinds of petty tantrums are displayed.
2. You are projecting. I don't love Libertarians. If it is too difficult for you to fathom that a person can admire SOME qualities of RP, without subscribing to the majority of his political positions, well you are probably a Libertarian. Were you unable to figure out what I meant when I said I don't believe Libertarian concepts, as have thus far been explained to me on this and other boards are workable or realistic. This is why I stated Libertarianism REMINDS me of Communism in that it is unrealistically idealistic. If you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand that comparison does not mean two things are the same, that is not my problem.
3. Your penchant for projection is showing again. I never said there was anything wrong with voting for Ron Paul. I feel the opposite. I think it is important to vote for whomever you think the best candidate is. Whether or not I agree with you is irrelevant. I would rather have you vote for whom you think is best, than to vote for my candidate just because he has a better chance of winning. I don't recall the Founding Fathers fighting for the right to vote for one of two candidates picked by corporations and PACs.
4. you really, really like projecting, don't you. Okay, let's give you a chance to support your position. What in my post evidences that I have my information "fed" to me? What specifically supports your little assertion? This should be interesting.

 

"Who is to say whether or not there would be enough room for a second company?"

Taxcutter says:
Markets, if undistorted by government, easily figure that out.

 

Don't cut my post off, I clearly stated more then this!

 

It wasn't relevant to my reply. Pretend it quoted your entire post and gave the same reply.

 

My bad, I thought I had added something to original post that I didn't.

The idea is that you would have a floor ratio that could not be breached by law, but you would set the ratio higher then the floor, so there could be some attempt at Keynesian economics if neccassary.

 

The problem witth the gold standard is that it eventually will be useless. There is a limited amount of gold in the world and gold that we have will eventually deteriorate. What do we do when there is not enough gold to back a viable economy?

 

Quick and easy way to transfer to gold standard:

Take all the gold the US owns, divide that by dollars in existance. Watch the fun! Probably should add the national debt to that equation too. If you want to add silver or any other precious metal then things get a lot more complex. We re talking reissue of currency or currency that is more dynamic as it depends on more than one resource to calculate its value. Then again even a gold based currency would flux daily. More metals should add to stability (and value)

 

So what would the price of gold have to be per ounce to cover the existing US dollars?

This is why I think having a ratio of dollars to gold is the way to go. I think gold would have to be like 15,000 dollars per ounce to cover all the dollars in existance.

 

Also feel like adding that the gold standard requires trust in the government that they wont issue more notes than they report gold (each note becomes a share in the gold stock). We cant trust out government to not do that, and when its discovered, our currency will be worth less than its real value because it cant be trusted

- - - Updated - - -

Gold already has real value though, so i dont see that working. Btw excuse the bad grammar, on phone

 

There are ways to force transperancy, you can make it a legal requirement for the information to be 100% public. No need to audit when anyone has access to the information.

Correct, which is why I think the ratio route is the only real alternative.

 

I want to come back to this as the answer is too much for phone typing, takes some thought. This is because of currency flow, whi h hording would prevent

 

Auditing the fed is bad enough and our government is very secretive. Im not a conspiracy theorist but look at how hard it was/is just to get straight answers on drone policy.

As for the ratio maybe i misstead and we are actually in agreement. Our dollar becomes a share of the gold stash, value being determined by how many shares of gold stash it is worth correct (1=1, 5=5, etc)?

 

Right, but this is the issue, we let them hide behind the fear that other people could use public information against them, so we let them keep everything secret and use accounting and audit's to attempt a functioning system.

We need to do away with this, if other people will use that public information against them, well then tough titties, they better figure out how to deal with it. We need to demand 100% transperancy, and not let them fear us into submission.

Not quite sure what you are saying here, but my idea is this.

We have X ounces of gold.

We have Y dollars in existance.

Gold is about 1500$ an ounce right now.

So if we said X * 1000$/Y= Z, we could set this as our floor ratio that could never be lowered past.


Then for the current rate it would be X * 1500$/Y = Z

Z being the ratio of gold to dollars.

This would mean in times of recession or war, we could still have some flexibility in our system to inflate, but a catch all that prevents unlimited money printing.