Hmm. I wonder what food it would be more beneficial to plant in a limited space garden... what sort of garden would be the most nutritionally complete, and how much space would be required per person?

I might do some research on that.

Now, I didn't say that. It's entirely possible that this is a legit mass protest. If so, I wish them luck. But like Elwar said, without the support of the World Police^®, they're not very likely to succeed.

Well, that's what he gets for getting pants from BFL.

Well, let's start with the things that a natural monopoly must worry about as much as the cartel does:
Competition. If the monopoly/cartel raises prices enough that a new competitor can undercut them and still make a profit, then that new competitor will appear to take advantage of that situation.
Customer dissatisfaction. If the monopoly/cartel provides a poor enough product or service that the customers are willing to pay more for a superior one, then a new competitor will appear to take advantage of that situation.
Alternatives/new technology. This is somewhat of a subset of the first point, but it's separate enough to warrant being it's own point. The monopoly/cartel need not only worry about someone coming along to provide the same product or service at lower prices or better quality, they must also worry about someone coming along and providing a competing product or service. For example, let's say one company managed to get a monopoly on fast-food hamburgers. They bought up or out-competed every other burger joint in town. They would still be competing with fast-food tacos, pizza, and chicken. Additionally, one of their out-competed rivals might switch gears, and sell frozen hamburgers, that the consumer could microwave at home.

Now for the additional worry that a cartel has:
Infighting. A cartel is, as I mentioned in another thread, somewhat like a wolf-pack made entirely of alphas. At any time, one of those members could turn on the others, and by utilizing one of those methods that I mentioned earlier could bring down a monopoly, squeeze out some extra profits at the expense of the other cartel members. For example, if Burger King, White Castle, McDonalds, and Hardee's/Carl's Jr were the members of a cartel which set hamburger prices, one could cut prices and "steal" business from the others, or refocus on service or product quality, and likewise "steal" business from the others. Or they could start selling frozen burgers (White Castle already does this, Harold and Kumar could have just gone to Wal-mart, instead), or branch out into Pizza (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, for instance, are all part of one company, Yum! Brands.)

No, not to "avoid" monopolies. To ensure that only the right people get monopolies, and to protect those who do.

Well, Let's say you were a drug dealer. You had your "turf" staked out, your favorite corner where people came to you to buy their drugs. Now, let's say another dealer "muscled in" on your turf, and one morning, you walk out to "your" corner, to find him and two big tough guys standing where you usually do. You go up to him, and you say, "Yo, this my turf, man, go get yer own corner." He replies, "It's my turf, now, punk. Piss off."

At this point you have several options: You could try for a peaceful solution, you could shoot him yourself, or you could go to the cops. Let's assume that you're a more enlightened drug dealer than is average, and you know that shooting him yourself will only start a war between his gang and yours, and going to the cops will, at best, still mean you need to get a new corner, because the cops will be watching that one for a while, and at worst, land you in jail right next to your rival and his buddies. So you opt for a peaceful solution.

Let's further say that I am an arbitrator (I am, by the way) and offer services to the drug dealers in the area (I don't, but only because I don't know any). You come to me, and ask for my assistance in resolving this turf dispute between you and the new guy. I accept, and proceed to offer my service as an arbitrator to the new gentleman, offering a peaceful solution, one that does not end up with him dead or behind bars. Now, we're starting to strain credulity, but let's assume that the other drug dealer is also wiser than average, and sees the benefit of my proposal. He agrees to arbitrate the dispute, rather than deal with the issue in the typical violent manner.

We then go to a room, and discuss the problems. It is discovered that the new guy was pushed out of his turf by yet another dealer, and just needed a place to conduct his business, and that's why he's taken over your spot. I suggest that the particular intersection where you do business has four corners, and he can simply take the opposite one, which is closer to his home anyway. He accepts, and you get your corner back, and he has a shorter "commute." Everybody happy, nobody dead. This is just off the top of my head, understand, and may not be entirely accurate, it's certainly grossly simplified. But it gets the gist across.

I'd say the Sinaloa Cartel is doing a pretty good job of "regulating" the drug economy in Mexico.

That doesn't really mean anything. I can show you images of presidents shaking hands and smiling with other leaders, months, or even weeks, sometimes, before the US took down that country.

No, in real life the rich people employ the less-rich, and pay them to provide the things they need. This is called the "economy," and it ensures that people are rewarded only inasmuch as they help others. This is, in fact, how the rich man got rich, by providing goods or services to many people.

Do you think that they did not have to work hard for years to afford that flat, as well? Do you think that they do not need to maintain that flat in livable condition in order to maintain that income? Do you not see that by doing so, they are relieving the renter of that responsibility?

I assume you're speaking of wage labor, and not literal slavery? Did you ever think that maybe, the wages are that worker's fair share? If I give you a short video to watch, will you listen to the tale of Edgar the exploiter?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40

This is a valid point, but in a free market, the same things that would topple a natural monopoly would topple or disintegrate a cartel. In addition, there is the possibility of internal strife. A cartel is less of an issue than a monopoly.

As I said, you have to go through proper channels to get a monopoly in the US.  If you don't, the penalties are harsh. But if you do, the benefits are enormous. And just like you can't go into a smoke shop and ask for a bong (it has to be called a "water pipe"), you can't call it a monopoly. It's a "government contract."

No. They need peaceful means of dispute resolution. Such as arbitration. But since any participation in that market is illegal, and punished by the government, it's difficult for them to get it. My point was that the drug market is anything but "unregulated." It's been regulated to death, in fact.

Now, a side note:
I am not here to "prove people wrong." I am in fact here to see if my ideas can be knocked down by anyone else's. If you can prove my logic faulty, I will discard it, and take up the superior point. The plain fact is that nobody has been able to prove me wrong yet, and I don't see much hope in you doing so. But I wish you the best of luck in trying.

Except "mutual aid" does not convey the self-interest inherent in human nature, the desire to better one's self.

Have you actually thought this through? Do the people in your test ground not need to eat, or need any other services?

Do try and keep in mind that that quoe was in response to this:
It was his claim that only an agrarian, matrilinear society community could be free from oppression, not mine.

Well, yeah... those not immediately out of work will be minimum wage employees.

I hope you like self-checkout. That's going to be all there are. Probably push that RFID checkout idea up a few years, too. Fire everybody but the restockers, the greeter, and one or two other people to get shoppers set up on the Walmart RFID program, switch out the pylons at the doors. Costs down, profits up, shoplifting a thing of the past.

Kinda sucks for all those out of work employees, though.

Well, to be fair, not all of them are minimum wage employees. But I can guarantee they all will be (probably even the store managers) after a minimum wage hike to $12/hr.

What a shame you stopped where you did, for he addresses this point:

But you knew that, right? After all, it would be base hypocrisy to accuse people of not reading posts before responding to them, and not actually read them yourself.

lol... yeah, I taught my dad the importance of regular backups, if nothing else.

I can't believe you're stupid enough to think they wouldn't.

Or a troll. You forgot troll.

That's precisely what many will do. 90% of small businesses, I would wager, would go out of business. Maybe more. It would certainly kill McDonalds, and most other minimum wage employers.

Truth hurts, I'm sorry you can't take it. In the unlikely event that you would like to learn a little economics to go with your dreaming, I'll be here. Or you can read Sv. Hazlitt: https://mises.org/document/6785/Economics-in-One-Lesson

Well, the world hasn't ended yet, so I'm guessing no?

Oh, evil....