Thanks for the clarifications. Actually, though, I think you misunderstood the natural of my confusion. I wasn’t confused about whether or not libertarians had more talking points about these issues. I figured you probably did (a good guess it turns out). What I was confused about is whether or not there is any relationship between these Libertarian talking points and reality. And, perhaps inadvertently, you cleared up that confusion for me. No, there is no such relationship.
For example you claim that “the reason there are monopolies is due to government intervention.” Wow! That’s an interesting fantasy. The only problem is that 400+ years of economic history shows just the opposite: whenever capitalism is left to regulate itself it produces monopolies, restraint of trade, wild speculative bubbles followed by increasingly severe crashes, and so on. And the only force that has ever been able to limit these destructive practices and get capitalists to behave as good citizens is regulation by a genuinely democratic government which is primarily accountable to the people.
And the way you describe a Ron Paul presidency you make it sound more like a dictatorship with the president making all the decisions himself unrestrained by any other branch of government. But isn’t it the congress which declares war and the president who, as commander in chief, must carry out congress’ wishes?
And wouldn’t Paul or any other president need a supportive congress to do anything at all? And how is such a president and congress going to get elected in our present system without gobs of corporate and finance money? Or did I misunderstand this too?
Also:
So Ron Paul would reduce the power of government (good luck on that one), and then the corporations and banks would have even more power, and they would carry out their agendas by forcing the government to invade even more countries so that they (the corporations) could exploit their people and natural resources, and… ? That’s a way to end these imperial wars? Huh? Did I miss something?
So essentially he ignored whatever you had to say. Although, if you simply said that “the reason there are monopolies is due to government intervention” and nothing more, you didn’t really give him anything to think about. With all due respect, you just presented a counter-claim with no apparent weight behind it.
I’d ask him to please substantiate what he says “400+ years of economic history [show]”. I’d also ask him to explain how capitalism has actually been left to regulate itself over that period. From what I see, governments have existed (at least in the West) during that entire time.
De jure, that’s still the case, as per the US Constitution. De facto, however, the executive branch now wages war without explicit declaration from Congress. Furthermore, it’s been doing this for some time. But really, I’d again ask him to please substantiate his claim that your description of a Ron Paul presidency sounds more like a dictatorship.
It’s certainly possible - at least theoretically - for a person to be elected president based purely on massive popular support. This conclusion is based on the system of presidential election. In the face of massive popular support, those in power would have to “cheat” to obtain a different outcome.
I think your opponent really needs to explain what he means by “power”. This is one of those words that are routinely thrown around with multiple meanings implicitly lying behind them at the same time. For example, “power”, as used by many, simultaneously means both “the ability to wield violent force” and “the (alleged) ability to escape (negative) consequences of doing so”. In logic, this is known as equivocation.
Furthermore, your opponent’s line of reasoning makes no sense. How does limiting the power of government lead to expanding the power of government (via corporations and banks forcing the government to invade even more countries)? That sounds like a non sequitur to me.
He made basically one assertion which is unsubstantiated and irrelevant. Simply ask the question “how is it that a monopoly can stay in market dominance whilst maintaining a monopoly price on a global scale?” It’s theoretically pretty impossible and quite unlikely so long as it’s not a very specific type of good.
Also Ron Paul is much more in favor of how the constitution and balance of powers are actually constructed than any president has been for a very long time now, he will do only that which is directly in his power to do.
If this your friend? If so, I suggest recommending him a good doctor.
Thanks for the clarifications. Actually, though, I think you misunderstood the natural of my confusion. I wasn’t confused about whether or not libertarians had more talking points about these issues. I figured you probably did (a good guess it turns out). What I was confused about is whether or not there is any relationship between these Libertarian talking points and reality. And, perhaps inadvertently, you cleared up that confusion for me. No, there is no such relationship.
Ad hominim
For example you claim that “the reason there are monopolies is due to government intervention.” Wow! That’s an interesting fantasy. The only problem is that 400+ years of economic history shows just the opposite: whenever capitalism is left to regulate itself it produces monopolies, restraint of trade, wild speculative bubbles followed by increasingly severe crashes, and so on
Ask him to give specifics. We don’t talk in general terms when it comes to history. I’d love it it he brought up any of these: Standard Oil, US Steel, Alcoa, AT&T, Microsoft.
And the only force that has ever been able to limit these destructive practices and get capitalists to behave as good citizens is regulation by a genuinely democratic government which is primarily accountable to the people.
I suppose he’d like to clarify how $7+ Trillion secret loans are “for the people” and how big business always, always conspiring with government is for the good of the public.
So Ron Paul would reduce the power of government (good luck on that one), and then the corporations and banks would have even more power, and they would carry out their agendas by forcing the government to invade even more countries
Lemme try to see how this works:
Government power is reduced
Corporations have more power
Government becomes even more tyrannical.
So a weaker government means a more tyrannical dictatorship and greater imperialism. Got it.
That’s a way to end these imperial wars? Huh? Did I miss something?
Yeah, now that you mention it I did see some marbles rolling by this way.