@Grek: If a shopkeeper is price gouging, the solution to that is... competition. If you're selling something people want at a price they begrudgingly pay, and I come in with the same or comparable item with a lower price, then I draw your customers away from you, often with celebrated thanks from them. Then you have no choice but to offer your goods at the same or lower price, depending on what you can afford as a seller. This is so basic and so obvious that even drug dealers intuitively understand they can make more money by undercutting the other dealers. Now, in the case of natural monopolies, no such thing has ever existed, nor is likely to ever exist. There is always a competitor in some form or another. If there is money to be made in an industry, field, or trade, people will find a way, provided the Govt does not restrict them from doing so.
@Whatever: It's called intellectual honesty and internal consistency. If 1st principles are to be maintain, then people must be allowed to do as they wish (in accords with 1st principles.) If you declare that [group] must be free to choose their own destiny, free from the coercion of others, to exclude whoever they wish from their private property for whatever reason they wish, then you must concede that that goes for EVERY group - not just the ones you view as disadvantaged, oppressed, or whatever. The fact that the thinkers of the Austrian School (primarily Jewish) recognized this, and recognized it held true for everybody, whites (relevant to them: Germans) included, would attest to their intellectual honesty and internal consistency.
@Souran: I can see how you may be confused, as to the Statist, segregation means, "Segregation decreed and enforced by the State," when it is perfectly legitimate for two mutually consenting parties to willfully segregate (as I said.) It is also perfectly legitimate for a group to decline to associate with another group, provided they don't use force, violence, coercion to achieve their segregation. And likewise, no group can justifiably use force/violence/coercion to impose themselves on another group. No group can justifiably access another group without the latter's consent. Included in the right to liberty is "freedom of association." No third party can justifiably use coercion, force, violence, etc. on two consenting parties. Just as I would support a group who wished to segregate, I would support any individuals or groups who wished to associate. You may be shocked to learn, that because all of this is true, that Libertarianism thus supports secession too.
@Frank: It only took, what? 5 hours? 6? for Godwin's Law to truly take effect. Also, you never bothered to actually refute anything related to Libertarianism. You went on-and-on about money's role and value in society... instead of addressing anything I actually said.
@Mord: I don't think you've ever read anything about the Libertarian philosophy if that's the case. Everything is based on praxeology: how humans behave in this reality, how humans take rational action based on desires and wants. It's not theoretical. It's not "what ifs". It's observations that when X condition is true, humans generally behave like [this], cited by historical examples. There's so much in your comment that illustrates everything that's wrong with your (and by extension, youse guyses) thinking. You seem to think that the haves and have-nots have always been so, when in reality there is a constant flow in and out of both categories. Fortunes are won, earned, accumulated, lost, squandered, mismanaged, etc. ~99% of and business that have existed within the past 100 years have gone out of business. But I appreciate how bold you are to admit that what you (and these others) are really after is other people's wealth. You will call it "redistribution" but admit what it is: theft. And again, you demonstrate an erroneous thought that tells me you haven't studied Libertarianism or thought things through. If I were a plutocrat, why would I want competition? Why would I want Govt to be limited to just defending property rights, when I could do what so many businesses today are trying to do: lobby for Govt subsides (other people's money), limited liabilities, restrictions on my competition, exclusivity to this or that market? If I was a plutocrat, wouldn't I be in favor of mass immigration? I could get so much labor for dirt cheap! Wouldn't I advocate that Govt make my product a mandatory purchase? Libertarianism doesn't assume a level playing field, on the contrary, as I've said at least twice now in this thread: Life is unfair. Life is hard. No one is born equal. Nature doesn't discriminate, she is not a respecter of persons. Libertarianism recognizes this and works forward from that. You call Libertarianism 'myopic' but as a philosophy, it's about as all encompassing, inclusive, and accurate as any philosophy can be.
@Dean: Your understanding is what is childlike. It is as Bastiat said,
It's actually laughable that you conceptualize it as "the magical right to own [thing]". The right exist a priori. There's no magic to it, just a recognition that for anyone to take something that does not belong to them, that is not given to them, puts them in the wrong. Even primitive peoples intuitively understand this concept. Even CHILDREN understand this concept. And you own it even if someone steals it from you - just because they now possess it does not mean ownership changed. Now, in order for justice to be rendered, should you steal my 2010 Chevy, I would probably need collective force i.e. Govt, to reclaim it. And that is the proper sphere of Govt - to ensure justice by secure private property and personal liberty. Also, "how can there be no money or no economy without society"... what? Who said that? Frank didn't say that. I didn't say that. But you're convinced you're right without understanding what you're trying, and failing, to argue against."Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I DEFY ANYONE TO EXTEND IT BEYOND THIS PURPOSE WITHOUT PERVERTING IT, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, TURNING MIGHT AGAINST RIGHT. [...] Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers?
@DeadDMWalking: Yes, quote Kaelik, another lemming who doesn't know what it is he's talking about. Where does this full-rebellion 24/7 you mention come from? Why are you talking about late-night basketball and crime? Social spending saves money? Whose? Oh, wait, we see the Leftist/Liberal/Progressive thought summed up succinctly:
That's hilarious. Imagine believing that the Govt is saving you money after they pick your pocket and then demand your employer pay you more to compensate. No, the difference between you Statists and myself (us Libertarians) is that I recognize that I -as an individual- have a moral (personal) duty. You and your lot put that duty off, that responsibility off, onto a bureaucratic institution which demands your charity at the end of a gun: the Govt. Here, have a meme:Likewise, requiring employers to pay living wages to the employed saves taxpayer money.