This sums it up well.

[wdmw]

Most of Americas charity goes to Sarah Mcgloclin, Dogs, Cats, Africa, Cancer, Jerrey's Kids & Aids... Not poor people.

My apologies for necroing this comment, but I just saw this ignorant shit post.

Top US Charities for 2012:

• 1. United Way - $3.9B - https://give.unitedway.org/page/contribute/support-us?source=Adwords2013&subsource=BrandCampaign
• 2. Salvation Army - $1.7B - http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf
• 3. Catholic Charities - $1.6B - https://support.catholiccharitiesusa.org/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=9113&track=BPI_gs_18753975054_catholic%20charities&gclid=CIOX6auDy7cCFVRk7AodBEsACQ

All of the above charities are for poor people.

[crumbcake]

The fourth ignores diseconomies of scale.

Ridiculous.  The fourth addresses economy of scale.  Countering arguments with "[that's] plain stupid" is just ... plain stupid.  I know defending ideas you haven't thought through bites, but why shit up the boards with pointless insults?  Why provoke when your stance is both absurd & undefendable?  Strategize!

Your points have been rigorously destroyed elsewhere, even on this very board. Don't blame me for your inability to use Google and research a topic before expounding on it.
The only point you made which is anywhere close to valid is the fourth one, addressing economies of scale. However, as I point out, it ignores the inherent diseconomies of scale. It's summed up in Wikipedia's definition of a natural monopoly:

Companies that take advantage of economies of scale often run into problems of bureaucracy; these factors interact to produce an "ideal" size for a company, at which the company's average cost of production is minimized. If that ideal size is large enough to supply the whole market, then that market is a natural monopoly.

Let me highlight the absurdity of what you're saying from several angles:

Monopolies are intrinsic to unregulated markets.  They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly.  Economics of scale is not the only thing that makes monopolies profitable.  Monopolies snuff out the competition (by definition) -- that's the other thing making them profitable.

Taking a different perspective, addressing your "problems of bureaucracy," or "Diseconomies of scale":

Diseconomies of scale addresses the potential, though by no means inevitable or terminal, problems of scaling up.  As single-cell organisms evolve & become multi-cell, absorbing "fuel" & expelling waste directly through the cell walls becomes impractical.  Circulatory system, specialized cells & other "bureaucracy & infrastructure" have to be created.  This certainly seems sub-optimal at first glance.  Yet critters with more cells than you can shake a stick at not only exist, but rule this planet.  One noteworthy multicell creature can wipe out life on the entire planet, several times over, if it so chooses.  Diseconomy of scale never suggests that large=less efficient or less likely, simply that size has associated problems.  Most of the time, these problems are dwarfed by the economy of scale.  And once you consider other added advantages of becoming a monopoly...

Even the economies of scale graph underlines this by showing the average per unit cost line going first down, and then up:
[graph]

Furthermore, there's little evidence that economies of scale apply to security.

Is that why most countries bigger than a breadbox have a single army, and not a bunch of guys with pickup trucks & shotguns arguing if and who to fight?  Trust me, they apply.

That would require it to be less expensive to defend more people, but that is clearly false.

I ride on the short bus, could you explain it to me nonetheless?

The more people you defend, the more your costs rise. Frankly, I would not be surprised if a detailed examination of the economics of security found that the "ideal" size of a defense agency is in the low double digits, or even lower.

I'm still lost. This is, loosely, the structure of your argument:

-It would have to be X, but it's clearly not!
-The more you scale, the more not X!1!
-Frankly, i wouldn't be surprised if after close examination, it would have to be not X!

Therefore, not X.  Q.E.D. !!!

Tell me there's more.

Finally, i take pains to stress the most important point, and you, intentionally or through lousy reading comprehension, ignore it.  I'll quote it again for you:

Unless evil aliens are involved, at least at one point in time, in the beginning, *all mankind was free*.  This state of freedom gave birth to everything, including all the "artificial" regulations we know today.  This is important.  Please try to remember this when making plans  

There.

So, because conquest happened, that makes it inevitable and preferable to peace?

What were you reading, certainly not my post?

Well, let's look at what you were responding to, shall we?

Let's, together!

Without the territorial monopoly, any person who finds himself the target of abuse from one protection agency can simply call up another one which is based nearby to come stop it.

To which you said:

"No *intelligent* person would "choose another nearby protection agency" any more than one would choose to pay protection money to a different gang, if the terms are better.  Possible in theory, dangerous in practice.

It follows, then:

"These guys kick down my door and search my house at 3 AM, but at least they're cheap!"

I'm sorry, wut?

edit:  And again, for the third time, you fail to answer the part i made extra-double-dog-sure you answered, i'll post it for the third time:

Unless evil aliens are involved, at least at one point in time, in the beginning, *all mankind was free*.  This state of freedom gave birth to everything, including all the "artificial" regulations we know today.  This is important.  Please try to remember this when making plans

[myrkul]

They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly.

What makes you think they aren't?

Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian?

[wachtwoord]

They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly.

What makes you think they aren't?

Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian?

Uses for Keynesian economics books:

1) Toilet paper
2) Feeding a fire
3) Cleaning cloth

[crumbcake]

They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly.

What makes you think they aren't?

Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian?

Have you read anything other than wikip?  Take this silly page you reach for so ardently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale
Have you noticed anything odd about it?  Now, go back & look at the talk page

Edit:  forgot to answer the less bated of your two questions:  Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen? 

[wdmw]

Remember when Microsoft had a natural monopoly on computer software?  It's a good thing the Feds put a stop to it; now we are able to enjoy Chrome, Firefox, Linux, Apple, etc.!

[myrkul]

They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly.

What makes you think they aren't?

Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian?

Have you read anything other than wikip?  Take this silly page you reach for so ardently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale
Have you noticed anything odd about it?  Now, go back & look at the talk page

I quoted the "natural monopoly" page, and the "economies of scale" page. Not the diesconomies of scale page.

Edit:  forgot to answer the less bated of your two questions:  Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen? 

Point me to any monopoly not granted by government, and I'll cede the point.

[crumbcake]

They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly.

What makes you think they aren't?

Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian?

Have you read anything other than wikip?  Take this silly page you reach for so ardently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale
Have you noticed anything odd about it?  Now, go back & look at the talk page

I quoted the "natural monopoly" page, and the "economies of scale" page. Not the diesconomies of scale page.

Edit:  forgot to answer the less bated of your two questions:  Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen?  

Point me to any monopoly not granted by government, and I'll cede the point.

For the fourth, fourth time i ask you to address the point you continue ignoring, now along with the majority of my points.  Oh, and i finally got what you were thinking re: the fourth point!!!  You think the word "terms" means "cost"!!!!!  No, think "terms of the contract!"  

Edit:  I'd gladly name monopolies not granted by the government, but i know you'll degenerate things to "oh, that wasn't a true monopoly, joe had a choo choo track in his back yard!" and "oh, a monopoly on matches isn't an important monopoly!1!"

Edit2:  I'm sorry i assumed you linked me to the Diseconomies of scale page -- i had no idea what that meant, so i must have just highlighted & wound up there myself.  To say the page's leeding is an understatement.  I don't usually hit the talk pages of random stuff i look up, but this thing was an eye-popper!

[wdmw]

Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen?  

The general scapegoat for monopoly regulation is Standard Oil, which has been debunked.

[crumbcake]

Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen?  

The general scapegoat for monopoly regulation is Standard Oil, which has been debunked.

I'll bite, how & where?

Edit:
"... world's first and largest multinational corporations ended in 1911, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that Standard was an illegal monopoly." -wikip

Who did the debunking, Archie?

Edit 2: Yep

[wdmw]

Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen?  

The general scapegoat for monopoly regulation is Standard Oil, which has been debunked.

I'll bite, how & where?

No problem, I'm pretty good with internet searches and reading.

http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=theses

http://www.masterresource.org/2011/08/vindicating-capitalism-standard-oil-i/

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html

http://irishliberty.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/the-myth-of-the-standard-oil-monopoly/

http://capitalism.org/antitrust/what-about-rockefellers-standard-oil/

http://mises.org/daily/5274

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_standard

[crumbcake]

Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen?  

The general scapegoat for monopoly regulation is Standard Oil, which has been debunked.

I'll bite, how & where?

No problem, I'm pretty good with internet searches and reading.

http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=theses

http://www.masterresource.org/2011/08/vindicating-capitalism-standard-oil-i/

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html

http://irishliberty.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/the-myth-of-the-standard-oil-monopoly/

http://capitalism.org/antitrust/what-about-rockefellers-standard-oil/

http://mises.org/daily/5274

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_standard

This is a joke?  Somebody's thesis?  a blog post by (is it this guy?  Alex Epstein, energy expert and founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, is one of the world's most innovative champions of fossil fuels. Author of Fossil ...), this character, of our beloved austrian school of economics:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Thomas_DiLorenzo_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg/220px-Thomas_DiLorenzo_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg
and you call that "debunked"?  Come on, did you think i wouldn't look?
If i make a post here saying WW2 never happen, would the validity of WW2's existence be debunked, or even be put in question?

Edit:  Thus far:  A school paper, An oil salesman, and an invisible hander.  I'll look at the rest nao
edit2:  Cato, libber's home turf.
 
edit 3:  Irish Liberty Forum, a deserted blog, looks like a cut & paste from one of the previous  links.  One comment.  

EDIT 4 ($) CAPITALISM, a blog paragraph with cut & paste quote from previous link!  Dude, do you even lift?

EDIT 5:  LOLZ!!!  http://mises.org/, need i say more?!

Edit 6, the last, best and final edit:  LOOOOLLLLOL!!!! http://www.aynrand.org  Well, if her fanbois say it's so, it's so!  Debunked it is!

[myrkul]

Your logical fallacy is...

[crumbcake]

Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen?  

The general scapegoat for monopoly regulation is Standard Oil, which has been debunked.

I'll bite, how & where?

No problem, I'm pretty good with internet searches and reading.

http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=theses

http://www.masterresource.org/2011/08/vindicating-capitalism-standard-oil-i/

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html

http://irishliberty.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/the-myth-of-the-standard-oil-monopoly/

http://capitalism.org/antitrust/what-about-rockefellers-standard-oil/

http://mises.org/daily/5274

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_standard

Thank you, thank you so much, i'm being sincere, nothing tong-in-cheek about this.  I'm grinning from ear to ear as i type this, i haven't felt this giddy in days!  This was awesome!

[Malawi]

Remember when Microsoft had a natural monopoly on computer software?  It's a good thing the Feds put a stop to it; now we are able to enjoy Chrome, Firefox, Linux, Apple, etc.!

Are you kidding?

Linux and apple worked just fine alongside MS, I used Netscape(now firefox) instead of MS explorer. Now I use Chrome btw.

[myrkul]

Remember when Microsoft had a natural monopoly on computer software?  It's a good thing the Feds put a stop to it; now we are able to enjoy Chrome, Firefox, Linux, Apple, etc.!

Are you kidding?

Linux and apple worked just fine alongside MS, I used Netscape(now firefox) instead of MS explorer. Now I use Chrome btw.

(Pssst: that was his point.)

[Malawi]

Remember when Microsoft had a natural monopoly on computer software?  It's a good thing the Feds put a stop to it; now we are able to enjoy Chrome, Firefox, Linux, Apple, etc.!

Are you kidding?

Linux and apple worked just fine alongside MS, I used Netscape(now firefox) instead of MS explorer. Now I use Chrome btw.

(Pssst: that was his point.)

Hmm, I have an excuse ready - english is my second language.

[myrkul]

Remember when Microsoft had a natural monopoly on computer software?  It's a good thing the Feds put a stop to it; now we are able to enjoy Chrome, Firefox, Linux, Apple, etc.!

Are you kidding?

Linux and apple worked just fine alongside MS, I used Netscape(now firefox) instead of MS explorer. Now I use Chrome btw.

(Pssst: that was his point.)

Hmm, I have an excuse ready - english is my second language.

Sarcasm comes across poorly in dry text, anyway. You basically have to know the other person's views well enough to detect that he's saying something that doesn't fit.

[Biomech]

They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly.

What makes you think they aren't?

Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian?

Have you read anything other than wikip?  Take this silly page you reach for so ardently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale
Have you noticed anything odd about it?  Now, go back & look at the talk page

Edit:  forgot to answer the less bated of your two questions:  Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen? 

To my extensive knowledge their has NEVER been a monopoly that was enforceable absent a state. Going clear back to Babylon.

If you look to more recent history, before they butt raped him, Andrew Carnegie supported the various tarriffs for the STATED SOLE PURPOSE of protecting monopolies.

JMK was not exactly noted for his accuracy, even by his admirers. Charm, wit, and bravado, certainly. But not accuracy. Menger, Von Mises et. al. have won this one by being accurate. Which doesn't make them popular, as their analysis doesn't condone nor call for monopolistic interventions on the part of regulators.

[wdmw]

Thank you, thank you so much, i'm being sincere, nothing tong-in-cheek about this.  I'm grinning from ear to ear as i type this, i haven't felt this giddy in days!  This was awesome!

No problem!  When I first started learning about free markets years ago, a good friend tried to bring up the same argument about anti-trust laws to justify government intervention.  I wasn't very knowledgeable about the history of anti-trust laws at the time outside of what is taught in state schools.  I've found that they have one of the largest disconnects between actual historical facts and the state narrative.