a utopian society is impossible with people, end of discusion.

It wouldn't be a utopia, it would just be better than our current society.

I only have one question, with the free market working so well with little to no restrictions will there be any guidelines to set to restrict monoplies. If so who will set these guidelines? If there is no central form of government will the state or small communities tax larger companies to stop them from assumming complete control in an industry?

If someone was to assume so much power, control and wealth such as Andrew Carnegie did in any given industry, wouldn't that somewhat destroy the free market if nobody can afford to compete?

__________________

Count my smiles

http://www.sythe.org/archives/331046...plication.html

Great read, but I have a quick question: Would there be any incentive to stop destruction of the environment? I don't understand how a free market would fix that; it doesn't directly affect the consumer.

You should read The Stateless Society, it answers that question. It was a link in one of Sythe's posts.

In short, lumber company's would have more incentive to replant after cutting down trees. They would own the land they cut so in the end they'd make more money by replanting than if they were to clear cut and not replant.

I'm sure places like state parks would just become like amusement parks-people pay to go visit them. The people who own them will make more money if it looks good, so there is incentive to keep places like that from being destroyed.

I have questions too though about how we would stop things such as littering and the like.

__________________
www.freerice.com

Jenni's Guide to Great Cybersex

It is irrational to equate two ideologies when one is a syllogistic contradiction and the other is not.

Monopolies only form when a government or coercive force exists to allow them to create a closed market. The free market leaves no room for monopolies.

Consider if companyA wanted to buy companyB through companyZ for 5,000,000 dollars each. The first sale would probably go fine. The second sale might go fine too. By the third buy-out, companyD's directors would be catching onto the fact that companyA is aiming to corner the market. So, naturally, they'd want more money, say 10,000,000. Now companyA moves on to companyE, who are just as smart as companyD and they want 20,000,000. And so on. By the time there are only two companies left, (companyA and companyZ) companyZ is going to be demanding an outrageous price that companyA couldn't ever hope to pay.

In fact, companyZ can make easy money here. They don't even have to agree to sell, they can just have 'talks' with companyA. These 'talks' will send their shareprice skyrocketing.

Meanwhile, while all this buying out is happening, more businessmen are starting up new businesses in the same market, in the hope that companyA will buy them out too.

Forming a monopoly in the free market is virtually impossible (and forming a stable monopoly IS impossible). The only way to hold a monopoly is to have some product with a secret method of manufacture that no one else knows. Even then, the general idea of your invention will eventually be recreated in a different manner thus divorcing you of your monopoly.

Police are easy; private police, private courts, DRO's.
Public schools are a menace. Good riddance. Compulsory education is slavery. Good riddance. When the education industry is free of government intervention the world can get on with the pursuit of knowledge, at last. You want to know why everyone in the first world is so ignorant? Its because the standard of education has been dropping like a stone. Like every other socialized industry, public education is a complete failure. Without competition to keep standards of education high and prices of education cheap there is no decent education anywhere.

Poor people would be better off without it. Education would be cheap, really cheap. Look at the internet. Information is cheap. Knowledgeable people are still plentiful, although they must self educate thesedays. If I could lawfully setup a school in my home, I probably would. Its an easy business to run. Many other people would as well.

And don't forget that poor people have to pay for public education, it isn't free. They pay through taxation. Taxation hits poor people the hardest; They have to pay an outrageous price (10 times what it would otherwise cost) for a substandard service they are forced to use.

Sythe, I agree with you for the schooling point. For schools in the United States, I doubt many of them would actually teach you you how to keep money in your pocket (i.e., not spending too much when getting a bigger paycheck, not buying things that continually drain money, etc.).

The school system was based on a Prussian system, and while that country is gone, the system is still left behind. This system was meant to train people to be workers and soldiers. In the twenty-first century, not as many people would choose to become a soldier after they graduate from school/university. The schooling system in America should have a mandatory period that teaches one on how to take care of money, instead of trying to cram information about the French Revolution into our minds. In our society where money runs the game, a class like that would surely benefit the future generation.

all i have to say is im glad im living in australia instead of USA. we actually have wellfair instead of food coupons you have to pay back anyway. if your poor in america, you die. you have no home, no food, you get sick and cant pay hospital fees so you die. its disgusting.

Disclaimer: This person in no way represents the opinions or education level of the average Australian

__________________

Vouches [300+] | Official MiddleMan | Free Jads

It's not libertarian that's the best, but capitalism. Either I'm mixing up two things, in two different "sectors".

Libertarianism and capitalism are two aspects of the same philosophy.

If you haven't done much research into freedom you won't yet have realized this: All the different words you can use to describe roughly the same 'method' of living (self-interest, anarcho-capitalism, capitalism, libertarianism, objectivism, classical liberalism) exist because no matter where you start from, if your premises are valid, and your reasoning is valid, you end up with the same conclusion: freedom is the most moral, freedom is the most efficient, freedom works.

Overall communism shouldn't and can't work, there are too many contradictions and illogical properties. Not only because in theory it can't work but in reality. Corrupt governments use the idea of equality and communism to, shall I say, Trojan Horse their way into society and in the end all that is left is blood shed and a bad economy.
However, if a government were to be founded on both the better aspects of Libertarianism and Socialism then perhaps the greatest country in the world could be founded! There is a country like this you say... CANADA?
Just kidding, but the reason why Canada is currently flourishing in the world of economics is due to our government which implies most of the better aspects and socialism and libertarianism. And the fact that the U.S. is heading into recession . Partial-socialism FTW!

I do not support a necessarily socialist or communist government, but I do support the socialization of things such as medicine, education, etc. Those sorts of things should belong to everyone, and just because you slap the word "socialized" to it doesn't make its supporters traitors.

How well a country does is immaterial. Socialism is theft, and theft is immoral.

Public education is a joke. It is a remnant of the Prussian population-control system. It does not educate, it brainwashes.

Socialized medicine is theft, and leads only to inefficient bureaucracies.

And rationed health care. Look at the old people; the American and UK government wants to let them die now because there isn't enough health care to go around.

You who support socialism probably think this is moral. Because you are all about sacrificing the few 'for the good of the whole'. Like all cannibalistic philosophies yours will end in death.

Socialism as it exists in Canada, Australia, and Europe (a free-market economy with progressive taxation and some social programs available to all, is alive and thriving.

If socialism doesn't work, why do the above countries continuously out-rank the US in in terms of health, education, happiness, etc.?

__________________

All the first world countries are dead in the water. The standard of living has been going down since the 80's. The cost of living has been going up since the 80's. The productiveness of the work force has been going down. The quality of government services has been falling like a stone. And public education is producing brainwashed idiots.

The US has a huge national debt from government overspending -- the whole country is living on credit. Australia is the same except the national debt is not owned by the government, but by corporations. I don't know much about the UK and CA, other than the cost of living is exceptionally high in both countries, but I imagine they are in the same boat.

Make no mistake, the first world is crumbling... socialism giving way to despotism. The whole world is kept alive on the products of Chinese slave labour. Your so called 'fair system' has only worked this long because it sits atop a country of one billion slaves.

1) The US is not a free-market.
2) As Sythe said in an earlier post, socialism might work for the first or second generation, then it starts to fail as people do not have free market experience.