[ExI] Usages of the term libertarianism

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Thu Jun 2 02:38:24 UTC 2011

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Correct. Price dumping and monopolies are within the libertarian tent.

### Not monopolies. You can't maintain a monopoly (i.e. a single
provider capable of dictating above-market prices) without using state
or state-like violence. Really, it is not possible. You can have a
monopoly that charges a market price (e.g. Alcoa) but an above-market
monopoly without direct violence is a figment of progressive


> Personally, I think there needs to be SOME law preventing people from
> unfair practices.

### Define "unfair".

> For example, the insider trading

### Insider trading should be legal and encouraged. It is one of the
best ways of inducing leakage of information from companies to
investors, and true and timely information is the lifeblood of
efficiency. Yeah, some assholes would get rich on it, and I know it
irks a lot of people, but what matters is that underperforming
companies would not be able to hide information from investors as long
as they can now. Imagine that employees of AIG or Merrill Lynch would
be able to openly trade their own stock and keep the proceeds - would
hundreds of billions of dollars of trouble be allowed to accumulate
before the purulent boil was lancinated? I don't think so.

and market
> manipulation practices that were employed by Joe Kennedy in the 1920s
> should not be allowed. Bernie Madoff type cons as well as pyramid
> schemes should be illegal.

### Fraud is illegal under any libertarian regime. Stupid greed is
legal though, and carries its own punishment. I don't pity the rich
dumbfucks who piled cash on Bernie without doing some background


> Other laws that are reasonable are some laws protecting the safety and
> health of workers. OSHA is a pain in the ass, but you need some level
> of protection for the physical safety of workers.

### Why do you think that bureaucrats are actually protecting anybody?
Are the workers themselves so stupid as not to care, not ask
questions, not make safer choices where they think they need them?

A combination of an unregulated personal insurance market with private
certification authorities and tort law would be much more likely to
protect workers where they want to be protected, rather than a
bureaucracy that morphed into a cancer that eats up our industry
without producing any tangible benefits.
> I also support food safety laws. Someone needs to watch that sort of thing.

### Certification, personal injury liability, branding instead of the
bureaucrat. The bureaucrat is your enemy.

> I am not in favor of a society where corporations have absolute
> complete free reign.

### Just like having private individuals with absolute complete free
reign, that would not be libertarian.


 That just moves tyranny from the public to the
> private sphere, and I am not in favor of tyranny in any form. That
> being said, there are too many laws and taxes holding companies back
> today.

### Amen to than, brother.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list