Just because 1 player in a market does it better than anyone else does not mean competition is broken. And there's nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly so long as that monopoly's position is not aided by government.
I don't reject the possibility of an alternative -- I'm a libertarian myself. The reality is the established parties (D and R) will work tirelessly, joined with a compliant media, to marginalize any candidate that isn't one of them. Just look at how CNN has stacked the polling criteria against Gary Johnson, the same criteria used to get into the Presidential debates.
When's the last time the LP got a Congressman or Senator elected?
Opening trade with another country will never be a bad thing. Trade only improves the lives of individuals. Now, structuring your tax and regulatory structure to incentivize the out-migration of businesses is a totally different story, but that's not China's fault.
While I agree with some of those things in the list, moving to a completely fiat currency would not be one of them.
and until the offenders have to pay themselves, they'll keep on offending
That's because if people do anything more than just speak, they'll likely be labeled a terrorist and be indefinitely contained. Funny ho that works, huh?
I know that this was said in jest, but it's not that far off from a real solution. Patents and copyrights are gov's way of attempting to introduce scarcity into an area where it wouldn't otherwise exist (ideas). Would people suddenly stop innovating just because someone else might be able to take and expand upon their idea? Would music stop being created or books stop being written just because those authors wouldn't have artificial monopoly on the distribution of their work?
Is there a real, actual justification for the continued existence of copyrights and patents?
When has the legal status of something ever stopped the police or any governmental agency?
I agree... if property law doesn't exist, IMO freedom does not exist.
I'm shocked MySpace is worth even that much... what of value do they have to offer? A few million dormant accounts?
We're inciting far more violence against the US by being involved in the business of all these countries than if we were simply to release the picture of a dead guy.
"The guilt would have to fall upon the one requesting the picture."
No, the guilt would be on those who committed the act.
but wouldn't that lead to a system of tyranny of the majority, aka full democracy? That's why we don't have democracy here -- everyone's voice deserves to be represented, no matter how small
I like the concept, but I would look at it from the perspective that everyone's vote is worth "1", but younger people have a multiplier on top to increase their vote's worth. Maybe then politicians wouldn't look so much at only catering to the senior vote.
Let's say I live in MA or NJ and spend the great majority of my commute driving on the local Turnpike. That is essentially a private road to which I'm paying more money to access. Should I still be taxed on mileage driven?
The fact is there's very little chance for a silver bullet to exist and any tax will adjust incentives and therefore behavior.
And what will it take for him to realize that he's not just wrong, but that he's harming the actual stakeholders?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How could you possibly make monopolies illegal when monopolies are economic snapshots of a given market at a given point in time? Microsoft had a monopoly on the internet browser for a number of years (after starting out as the underdog in that market). That certainly isn't the case today.