Anarcho-capitalism, Monopolies, Private dictatorships

[no to the gold cult]

How would Anarcho-capitalists handle the emergence of monopolies?

[1715668230]

1715668230

[1715668230]

1715668230

[1715668230]

1715668230

[1715668230]

1715668230

[Prze_koles]

First thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

[no to the gold cult]

I disagree, combination is a superior strategy to competition. If making a profit is your game then it makes sense to join forces with the competition and 'pull-up-the-ladder' The government protects monopolies argument is somewhat chicken-&-egg. In heavy industry; transport, comms, governments will necessarily ally with these monopolies to ensure the stability of critical sectors.

In many cases I'm sure government may actually work towards forming monopolies either due to strategic concerns mentioned or because government is often heavily influenced by big money, the exact same kind of big money that would eat an anarcho-capitalism for breakfast and shit out absolute dynasties.

Freidman says he doesn't understand Debeers... there you go. A band of ruthless adventurers bought mercenary power and the assistance of the British Army to bear in Southern Africa and through no small amount of slave labour and the establishment of a state (Rhodesia, later overthrown by African freedom fighters) was able to entrench itself as the diamond monopoly, crushing all upstarts or industrial alternatives through a mixture of the control of cultural infactuation and state-allied might.

[ribuck]

Under anarcho-capitalism a natural balance is reached because monopolies, being large organisations, are slower to react to changes than smaller more-nimble organisations. The time always comes when the monopoly is caught out by fast-changing events to which it can't react quickly enough to maintain its monopoly position.

In heavy industry; transport, comms, governments will necessarily ally with these monopolies to ensure the stability of critical sectors.

That stability is good for the dominance and profitability of the government-favored players in those sectors, but for society as a whole it would be better to have dynamism and the opportunity for change than to have "stability".

[no to the gold cult]

Under anarcho-capitalism a natural balance is reached because monopolies, being large organisations, are slower to react to changes than smaller more-nimble organisations. The time always comes when the monopoly is caught out by fast-changing events to which it can't react quickly enough to maintain its monopoly position.

In heavy industry; transport, comms, governments will necessarily ally with these monopolies to ensure the stability of critical sectors.

That stability is good for the dominance and profitability of the government-favored players in those sectors, but for society as a whole it would be better to have dynamism and the opportunity for change than to have "stability".

Monopolies are able to prevent competition as they accumulate market power, which they diversify into other forms of power. They are able to entrench themselves and maintain their position by economies of scale and economies of scope. A strong, well-run monopoly can maintain its favored position for decades. Power can be bought or gamed in any political system, or even in the absence of a political system (as is effectively the naive and misguided dream of anarchists of various stripes).

I contend that it is precisely because of the power monopolies can gather to themselves that they are able to influence, recruit or ally with the state itself.

It's interesting to remind ourselves why states exist in the first place, their origin was in the simple function of maintaining law and order. The monopoly of force for the settlement of disputes. This is the essential function of any state. Everything else they've become over time is the product of various historical influences and struggles that they've had to mediate or be subjected to. Landowners, traders, peasants, serfs, slavers, slaves, industrialists, laborers, the myriad complexities of urban centres, cultural minorities, technological innovations, various formations of military forces, religions etc.

Without the state multiple influences would still exist and there would still be a need for the control of force (Rands night-watchmen state). The state itself is in my opinion the Essential Monopoly without which order cannot be maintained. Without a state any Jack with a gun or a band of club-weilding friends would overwise attempt to impose their own law. There would be a period of 'war-lordism' where most people would be unable to invest significantly in any endeavor until eventually some overall power would emerge and voila, a state has formed again. States are the end of internal conflict, or the mediation of such conflict by definition.

But even with a simple state, life itself won't sit still and remain simple, the struggles and vying for position would still continue, the state will still become increasingly complex as it continues its obligation to mediate between competing interests.

In my opinion, anarchists don't even recognize the nature of the game so they have no chance of winning, they merely demand the umpire be abolished as if this would mean victory. In an anarcho-capitalist society monopolies would form, maximize profits, and defend their positions against the natural forces of entropy. So anarcho-capiland would still end up with a state, only a state entirely given over to the cause of various allied monopolies. The influence of workers, peasants, small scale traders and innovators etc would have been completely dis-empowered by the anarcho-capitalsist tennets, the mediation of their interests would be denied completely, no court of law for them to fight their case. They could be crushed by brute force.

In a society without a state the door is left open to uncontested control by allied monopolists. Eventually, there'd just be an authoritarian behemoth run by a complex of private power in which no one has any rights except the owners. Monarchies basically.

The state is an inevitable space, and furthermore it is a battle-ground that must be contested and fought for. To attempt to abolish the state is merely to concede all power to private monopolies.

That's my argument anyway.

[FatherMcGruder]

Please don't conflate "anarcho"-capitalism with anarchism.

If you'd like to learn about anarchism, even for the sake of improving your arguments, I'd recommend An Anarchist FAQ.

[Ulysses]

When monopoly raises the price, competitors will enter into their market. So even though monopoly is possible, it can't do any harm in an-cap society, unlike current monopolies, that are forced by government.

[tomcollins]

How would Anarcho-capitalists handle the emergence of monopolies?

Either a monopoly is serving customers really well and efficiently (which is really good), or they used force to get to that position (which is bad, and you deal with them the same as anyone who uses force).

Monopolies cannot last if they are not serving customers well or artificial barriers of entry are enacted.  Otherwise, competitors will come in.

Or are you concerned that without the government to break up IBM/Microsoft/Google/(insert next tech boogeyman), no one will ever be able to compete?

[sirius]

In a free market society you might not even see very big pools of capital (corporations) forming. People handle capital much more efficiently when it's their own, not shared with everyone or owned by some distant capitalist. It's just taxation and other state bureaucracy that makes distribution of ownership less practical in some cases.

Big corporations tend to have management problems similar to those seen in communist countries. Instead of a mega-corporation like Siemens, you'd have a lot more efficient network of private entrepreneurs who own their personal means of production, or perhaps pool resources when bigger machines and tools are required. People would more often sell the results of their work rather than working hours. Idle days spent at the office only because of hour-based work contract would be history.

[no to the gold cult]

All I'm saying is a monopoly of violence will always end up forming, anarcho-capitalistss and anarchists both seem to not get that. I don't conflate the two as they are very different, but they both seem to believe in the possibility of a power vacuum. Libertarians are slightly better except they believe in a simplistic faux-human sociopath-Randist type being that can accurately be described both as 'Homo-Economicus' and 'wanker'.

For me the question is who controls the monopoly of violence (aka the state). Private share-holders, or public stake-holders?

I'm a public stakeholder man myself. Everyone gets an equal stake in the state, and that stake's worth something, a decent education, decent healthcare (and not just some shitty American style medicare or something), decent roads and housing and an essential amount of income whether you're rich or poor if you need it and the right not to be victimized by said state or anyone else within its borders.

There's plenty of space left over in a society like that for surpluses and business models and profits and private swimming pools and the like.

[tomcollins]

All I'm saying is a monopoly of violence will always end up forming, anarcho-capitalistss and anarchists both seem to not get that. I don't conflate the two as they are very different, but they both seem to believe in the possibility of a power vacuum. Libertarians are slightly better except they believe in a simplistic faux-human sociopath-Randist type being that can accurately be described both as 'Homo-Economicus' and 'wanker'.

For me the question is who controls the monopoly of violence (aka the state). Private share-holders, or public stake-holders?

I'm a public stakeholder man myself. Everyone gets an equal stake in the state, and that stake's worth something, a decent education, decent healthcare (and not just some shitty American style medicare or something), decent roads and housing and an essential amount of income whether you're rich or poor if you need it and the right not to be victimized by said state or anyone else within its borders.

There's plenty of space left over in a society like that for surpluses and business models and profits and private swimming pools and the like.

Why will a monopoly of violence always end up forming?  If so, it's not an anarcho-capitalist society.  Is it possible human's can never be convinced of that? Possibly.  But I don't argue something based on what people may or may not do, I argue based on what is best, and if people are convinced, then it will happen, otherwise it won't.

[BitterTea]

All, I highly recommend reading this article. Don't be put off by the title, the point is that it makes no sense to talk about "anarcho-capitalism" or "anarcho-socialism", there is just anarchy, which is incompatible with preconceived notions of how such a society would function. I think the author makes a good argument that such large accumulations of capital as we have today would not occur, due to unsubsidized costs of protection. Combined with a population more or less agreeing that statism is undesirable, which is achievable through conversation and education, I think anarchy is sustainable.

[sirius]

All I'm saying is a monopoly of violence will always end up forming, anarcho-capitalistss and anarchists both seem to not get that.

The state monopoly of legal violence is there only because enough people accept it. It's not like the state (or a private company) could violently keep all the citizens under its power.

[BitterTea]

The state monopoly of legal violence is there only because enough people accept it. It's not like the state (or a private company) could violently keep all the citizens under its power.

+1

The Voluntaryist insight - "All power ultimately derives from consent, whether it be willingly given or based on reluctant compliance or that derived from strict enforcement of governmental law."

[grondilu]

There is nothing wrong in a monopoly, as long as it is obtained legetimately, ie. without violence.

Google for instance has almost a monopoly on web searches.   Does anyone complain?  No.  Because searching information on the web is just something that they do better than anyone else and that is why they have a monopoly.  There is a demand and they satisfy this demand.  Where is the problem?

[no to the gold cult]

All I'm saying is a monopoly of violence will always end up forming, anarcho-capitalistss and anarchists both seem to not get that. I don't conflate the two as they are very different, but they both seem to believe in the possibility of a power vacuum. Libertarians are slightly better except they believe in a simplistic faux-human sociopath-Randist type being that can accurately be described both as 'Homo-Economicus' and 'wanker'.

For me the question is who controls the monopoly of violence (aka the state). Private share-holders, or public stake-holders?

I'm a public stakeholder man myself. Everyone gets an equal stake in the state, and that stake's worth something, a decent education, decent healthcare (and not just some shitty American style medicare or something), decent roads and housing and an essential amount of income whether you're rich or poor if you need it and the right not to be victimized by said state or anyone else within its borders.

There's plenty of space left over in a society like that for surpluses and business models and profits and private swimming pools and the like.

Why will a monopoly of violence always end up forming?  If so, it's not an anarcho-capitalist society.  Is it possible human's can never be convinced of that? Possibly.  But I don't argue something based on what people may or may not do, I argue based on what is best, and if people are convinced, then it will happen, otherwise it won't.

Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence.

Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever.

If you want to live in a perfect competition of violence, good luck to ya.

[no to the gold cult]

There is nothing wrong in a monopoly, as long as it is obtained legetimately, ie. without violence.

Google for instance has almost a monopoly on web searches.   Does anyone complain?  No.  Because searching information on the web is just something that they do better than anyone else and that is why they have a monopoly.  There is a demand and they satisfy this demand.  Where is the problem?

Exactly. Most states have a monopoly on violence and people accept the premise of such a monopoly existing. For most people the question is how the monopoly is run and to what end, who controls it. Most people do want there to be a body on whose authority "laws" are created and enforced. In times past the say-so of some king was enough but no more. Now most people want laws to be created and enforced in democratic processes and they don't want private wealth or religious leaders etc to have more say in this process.

[tomcollins]

All I'm saying is a monopoly of violence will always end up forming, anarcho-capitalistss and anarchists both seem to not get that. I don't conflate the two as they are very different, but they both seem to believe in the possibility of a power vacuum. Libertarians are slightly better except they believe in a simplistic faux-human sociopath-Randist type being that can accurately be described both as 'Homo-Economicus' and 'wanker'.

For me the question is who controls the monopoly of violence (aka the state). Private share-holders, or public stake-holders?

I'm a public stakeholder man myself. Everyone gets an equal stake in the state, and that stake's worth something, a decent education, decent healthcare (and not just some shitty American style medicare or something), decent roads and housing and an essential amount of income whether you're rich or poor if you need it and the right not to be victimized by said state or anyone else within its borders.

There's plenty of space left over in a society like that for surpluses and business models and profits and private swimming pools and the like.

Why will a monopoly of violence always end up forming?  If so, it's not an anarcho-capitalist society.  Is it possible human's can never be convinced of that? Possibly.  But I don't argue something based on what people may or may not do, I argue based on what is best, and if people are convinced, then it will happen, otherwise it won't.

Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence.

Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever.

If you want to live in a perfect competition of violence, good luck to ya.

Sweet, a Mad Max reference, never seen that before.

Violence is very counter-productive for society.  Most people can interact peacefully and gain more by being peaceful than by being violent.  Uninitiated violence is *never* just, and the more people that believe that, the better.

Hell, even gangs, who cannot settle conflicts peacefully in the legal system, are able to get along peacefully for a long period of time, handling disputes internally.  Of course this doesn't work very well since they have no legal recourse for their disputes, so violence is the only answer in that case.

If people believe violence is ok, you will live in a violent society.  If people believe violence is wrong except in the case of defense, then you will live in a peaceful society.  What's the problem?

[no to the gold cult]

All I'm saying is a monopoly of violence will always end up forming, anarcho-capitalistss and anarchists both seem to not get that. I don't conflate the two as they are very different, but they both seem to believe in the possibility of a power vacuum. Libertarians are slightly better except they believe in a simplistic faux-human sociopath-Randist type being that can accurately be described both as 'Homo-Economicus' and 'wanker'.

For me the question is who controls the monopoly of violence (aka the state). Private share-holders, or public stake-holders?

I'm a public stakeholder man myself. Everyone gets an equal stake in the state, and that stake's worth something, a decent education, decent healthcare (and not just some shitty American style medicare or something), decent roads and housing and an essential amount of income whether you're rich or poor if you need it and the right not to be victimized by said state or anyone else within its borders.

There's plenty of space left over in a society like that for surpluses and business models and profits and private swimming pools and the like.

Why will a monopoly of violence always end up forming?  If so, it's not an anarcho-capitalist society.  Is it possible human's can never be convinced of that? Possibly.  But I don't argue something based on what people may or may not do, I argue based on what is best, and if people are convinced, then it will happen, otherwise it won't.

Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence.

Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever.

If you want to live in a perfect competition of violence, good luck to ya.

Sweet, a Mad Max reference, never seen that before.

Violence is very counter-productive for society.  Most people can interact peacefully and gain more by being peaceful than by being violent.  Uninitiated violence is *never* just, and the more people that believe that, the better.

Hell, even gangs, who cannot settle conflicts peacefully in the legal system, are able to get along peacefully for a long period of time, handling disputes internally.  Of course this doesn't work very well since they have no legal recourse for their disputes, so violence is the only answer in that case.

If people believe violence is ok, you will live in a violent society.  If people believe violence is wrong except in the case of defense, then you will live in a peaceful society.  What's the problem?

I think you're being naive. Gangs co-exist peacefully for long periods of time because balances of power set in.

Wishing for Peace and Love is all very well but does not accord with human realities. There's always going to be somebody that didn't get the memo. Violence exists, it must be dealt with. Frankly I'd rather leave that sort of thing to the police force. I also insist that said police force be accountable to me and my peace-loving fellows, minorities and majorities and all.

[grondilu]

Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence.

Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever.

If you want to live in a perfect competition of violence, good luck to ya.

True, everybody would like to live in a peaceful society, with no gun or any other kind of violence.

But not at any price.  At some point if the oligopoly of violence asks too much to the people it is supposed to protect, then individuals get weapons and reorganize distribution of force.

So if we have to step towards a Mad Max or Clint Eastwood society in order to get rid of the scumbags who spoil every single inch of freedom we desire, be it.

[tomcollins]

Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence.

Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever.

If you want to live in a perfect competition of violence, good luck to ya.

True, everybody would like to live in a peaceful society, with no gun or any kind other kind of violence.

But no at any price.  At some point if the oligopoly of violence asks too much to the people it is supposed to protect, then individuals get weapons and reorganize distribution of force.

So if we have to step towards a Mad Max or Clint Eastwood society in order to get rid of the scumbags who spoil every single inch of freedom we desire, be it.

The other thing is, the most violent gangs and criminals absolutely dwarf the level of violence that the state has been able to get away with.  Look at how many people have been outright murdered by states.  Compare that to all regular criminals in history, including gangs.  It's not even a close comparison.

While most states can rule people peacefully and with their will, occasionally states turn so bad and violent that they absolutely slaughter millions of people.  I'm willing to deal with Mad Max if it means no Pol Pots, no Stalins, no Hitlers, no Bushes, no Trumans, no Qadaffis, etc...

[chickenado]

Monopolies are only a bad thing in a propretarian economy, because there they often exclude people from using capital in a more efficient way than the owner of that capital.

In a non-propretarian economy monopolies can be desireable.  One example is open-source software. Too many forks can be detrimental. It's better if everyone just sticks to ONE standard.

Bitcoin too could become a monopoly, even if nobody really owns or controls the Bitcoin protocol.  IMO that would be superior to several competing block chains.

[sirius]

Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence.

Free competition doesn't mean that everyone is a producer of the good.

Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever.

You don't want to worry about the complex process how the materials for your computer are gathered from all over the world, turned into components, assembled and finally delivered to you. You don't need to, you just buy it. Granting a violently enforced monopoly to computer production would ruin the industry just like state has ruined justice.

[tomcollins]

Monopolies are only a bad thing in a propretarian economy, because there they often exclude people from using capital in a more efficient way than the owner of that capital.

In a non-propretarian economy monopolies can be desireable.  One example is open-source software. Too many forks can be detrimental. It's better if everyone just sticks to ONE standard.

Bitcoin too could become a monopoly, even if nobody really owns or controls the Bitcoin protocol.  IMO that would be superior to several competing block chains.

But if the main fork goes down a bad path, then forks become desirable.  If there was a critical problem in the Bitcoin protocol or an improvement to be made, a fork would be a good thing.  But no one is forced to use any individual fork, so whatever is best will tend to win out.  But sometimes there is room for forks.  See: OpenOffice.

[grondilu]

While most states can rule people peacefully and with their will, occasionally states turn so bad and violent that they absolutely slaughter millions of people.  I'm willing to deal with Mad Max if it means no Pol Pots, no Stalins, no Hitlers, no Bushes, no Trumans, no Qadaffis, etc...

Agreed.  Local violence used by individuals, with their own means, is certainly less dangerous than global scale industrialised violence from States, financed with taxation.

States have used tax money to design nuclear bombs, do genocides and so many terrible stuffs.  In many ways, twentieth century history is much scarier than any MadMax movie.

On one hand you have states:



And on the other hand you have anarcho-capitalistic icones:




Now, is anarcho-capitalism really scarier ?

[tomcollins]

While most states can rule people peacefully and with their will, occasionally states turn so bad and violent that they absolutely slaughter millions of people.  I'm willing to deal with Mad Max if it means no Pol Pots, no Stalins, no Hitlers, no Bushes, no Trumans, no Qadaffis, etc...

Agreed.  Local violence used by individuals, with their own means, is certainly less dangerous than global scale industrialised violence from States, financed with taxation.

States have used taxed money to design nuclear bombs, to do genocides and so many terrible stuffs.  In many ways, twentieth century history is much scarier than any MadMax movie.

On one hand you have states:

And it comes down to what the people are willing to accept.  If you have a culture that accepts violence, you end up with a lot of violence.  If you centralize power, it makes it that much easier to make even more violence, and harder to stop.  If people do not accept violence, then a centralized system it still is hard to stop, but at least it can be possible.  It is virtually impossible to make it very far with violence.

[no to the gold cult]

Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence.

Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever.

If you want to live in a perfect competition of violence, good luck to ya.

True, everybody would like to live in a peaceful society, with no gun or any kind other kind of violence.

But no at any price.  At some point if the oligopoly of violence asks too much to the people it is supposed to protect, then individuals get weapons and reorganize distribution of force.

So if we have to step towards a Mad Max or Clint Eastwood society in order to get rid of the scumbags who spoil every single inch of freedom we desire, be it.

The other thing is, the most violent gangs and criminals absolutely dwarf the level of violence that the state has been able to get away with.  Look at how many people have been outright murdered by states.  Compare that to all regular criminals in history, including gangs.  It's not even a close comparison.

While most states can rule people peacefully and with their will, occasionally states turn so bad and violent that they absolutely slaughter millions of people.  I'm willing to deal with Mad Max if it means no Pol Pots, no Stalins, no Hitlers, no Bushes, no Trumans, no Qadaffis, etc...

But you will get states anyway. Anarcho-Capitalists have a revolution or something, and society is delivered into a perfect competition of violence.

Though Anarcho-Capitalists are peace loving and think everyone should avoid violence, some people out there don't give a fuck.

Weeks past, bands form, after a few months or years an oligopoly of violence forms. After a few decades... a vast monopoly of violence has formed, and makes sure everyone plays nice. It is essentially a state.

What's the difference from this state that has arisen after an anarcho-capitalist revolution and a subsequently perfectly competitive period of violent turmoil, and the states of today? (at least in the West, many parts of the world are still dealing with unrepresentative state power)

The states today are subject to a long history of mistakes and struggles where state power went massively wrong, had to be grappled with by the people, revolutionized and laws amended, made war for and made war against... movements raised and imperialisms rolled back, workers empowered and sections given the vote... until finally today we have.... Liberal Democracy. Oh well, a long way to go yet.

And the post anarcho-revolutionary state? Well, it gets to start from scratch, starting with the rise of some guy whose second name may as well be Caesar or Charlemagne or something and ending with some guy who may as well be called Mao, or Adolf, or Nixon. All the mistakes and horrors of centuries from scratch.

I say let's evolve the states and fuck Year One, I say let's not smash it all down and start again, I say modify what we have. Improve it, it's worth fighting for and that's why it exists in the first place. There will always be a State, we should take responsibility for the things instead of pretending we owe nothing to history. We're products of history, sick and demented as it is.

The Koch Brothers et al are totally happy for you to throw your hands up in frustration and devote yourself to various solipsist delusions like children that have thrown their toys from the pram. Meanwhile untold millions that have fought and died for the services that the state now render us (where it's previous concerns were only for the welfare of kings and nobles) now roll in their graves. I'm against this.

[wumpus]

On one hand you have states:
...
And on the other hand you have anarcho-capitalistic icones:
...

Now, is anarcho-capitalism really scarier ?

Never looked at it in this way, but you do have a point.

[grondilu]

Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence.

Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever.

If you want to live in a perfect competition of violence, good luck to ya.

True, everybody would like to live in a peaceful society, with no gun or any kind other kind of violence.

But no at any price.  At some point if the oligopoly of violence asks too much to the people it is supposed to protect, then individuals get weapons and reorganize distribution of force.

So if we have to step towards a Mad Max or Clint Eastwood society in order to get rid of the scumbags who spoil every single inch of freedom we desire, be it.

The other thing is, the most violent gangs and criminals absolutely dwarf the level of violence that the state has been able to get away with.  Look at how many people have been outright murdered by states.  Compare that to all regular criminals in history, including gangs.  It's not even a close comparison.

While most states can rule people peacefully and with their will, occasionally states turn so bad and violent that they absolutely slaughter millions of people.  I'm willing to deal with Mad Max if it means no Pol Pots, no Stalins, no Hitlers, no Bushes, no Trumans, no Qadaffis, etc...

But you will get states anyway. Anarcho-Capitalists have a revolution or something, and society is delivered into a perfect competition of violence.

Though Anarcho-Capitalists are peace loving and think everyone should avoid violence, some people out there don't give a fuck.

Weeks past, bands form, after a few months or years an oligopoly of violence forms. After a few decades... a vast monopoly of violence has formed, and makes sure everyone plays nice. It is essentially a state.

What's the difference from this state that has arisen after an anarcho-capitalist revolution and a subsequently perfectly competitive period of violent turmoil and the states of the West today?

The states today are subject to a long history of mistakes and struggles where state power went massively worong, had to be grappled with by the people, revolutionized and amended, made war for and made war against... movements made and imperialisms rolled back, workers empowered and sections given the vote... until finally today we have.... Liberal Democracy. Oh well, a long way to go yet.

And the post anarcho-revolutionary state? Well, it gets to start from scratch, starting with the rise of some guy whose second name may as well be Ceasar or Charlamagne or something and ending withy some guy may as well be called Mao, or Adolf, or Nixon. All the mistakes and horrors of centuries from scratch.

I say let's evolve the states and fuck Year One, I say let's not smash it all down and start again, I say modify what we have. Improve it, it's worth fighting for and that's why it exists in the first place. There will always be a state, we should take responsibility for it.

That's where the debate gets interesting.  I'll write more about that later.

[tomcollins]

But you will get states anyway. Anarcho-Capitalists have a revolution or something, and society is delivered into a perfect competition of violence.

Perhaps people will get states.  If you destroyed every church, would religion go away?  Of course not.  You need to actually convince people not to be religious for it to be meaningful.  The state is just another religion.  Can you convince enough people?  Maybe, maybe not.

Though Anarcho-Capitalists are peace loving and think everyone should avoid violence, some people out there don't give a fuck.

And if those people are in the minority, life will not be pleasant for them.  If they are in the majority, then they will get away with it.

Weeks past, bands form, after a few months or years an oligopoly of violence forms. After a few decades... a vast monopoly of violence has formed, and makes sure everyone plays nice. It is essentially a state.

Again, tear down churches, new churches will be built.  Convince people to abandon religion, and they will not.

What's the difference from this state that has arisen after an anarcho-capitalist revolution and a subsequently perfectly competitive period of violent turmoil, and the states of today? (at least in the West, many parts of the world are still dealing with unrepresentative state power)

The states today are subject to a long history of mistakes and struggles where state power went massively wrong, had to be grappled with by the people, revolutionized and laws amended, made war for and made war against... movements raised and imperialisms rolled back, workers empowered and sections given the vote... until finally today we have.... Liberal Democracy. Oh well, a long way to go yet.

And the post anarcho-revolutionary state? Well, it gets to start from scratch, starting with the rise of some guy whose second name may as well be Caesar or Charlemagne or something and ending with some guy who may as well be called Mao, or Adolf, or Nixon. All the mistakes and horrors of centuries from scratch.

Again, see above.  Yes, if people reject violence on the whole, everyone will laugh at the next Caesar or Charlemagne.  If people support violence, then of course they will return.

I say let's evolve the states and fuck Year One, I say let's not smash it all down and start again, I say modify what we have. Improve it, it's worth fighting for and that's why it exists in the first place. There will always be a State, we should take responsibility for the things instead of pretending we owe nothing to history. We're products of history, sick and demented as it is.

The Koch Brothers et al are totally happy for you to throw your hands up in frustration and devote yourself to various solipsist delusions like children that have thrown their toys from the pram. Meanwhile untold millions that have fought and died for the services that the state now render us (where it's previous concerns were only for the welfare of kings and nobles) now roll in their graves. I'm against this.

While the pragmatic belief that we cannot convince people may be true, it won't stop me from trying.  The Koch brothers, lol, like they support anarchy.  They just want *their* version of the state.

Fought and died for the services the state now render us?  If someone was stupid enough to get themselves killed so I could get a monopoly of service from someone, let them roll in their graves.  I do support those who died to *keep* a monopoly of power from interfering in our lives, though.

But you do not need to convince everyone.  You just need to convince a few people.  They can convince a few more.  Eventually it will grow, or it will not.  Eventually it will hit a genius who will invent something to make it so it does not matter what other people think, and we can live our lives without interference.

But there is no harm at all in teaching people that violence is wrong, even when its done by people with special uniforms.

[BitterTea]

I do not agree with the assumption that anarchy must devolve into statism.

1) A failed state is chaos, not anarchy.
2) A state derives its power from the consent of the people.
3) If that consent is withdrawn, the state has no power.
4) If anarchy provides a better life for people, they will protect it.

So, my plan is to attempt to convince as many people as I can that anarchy is preferable to statism. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, though I am cautiously optimistic that we'll see some small steps in that direction, especially due to the internet and (perhaps) Bitcoin. All that is required is a critical mass of individuals to ignore the state, and it will cease to have any power at all. There are many ways which an anarchy might protect itself from the aggression of other states - the use of miliatias, private defense organizations, assassination politics, etc.

[BitterTea]

Eventually it will hit a genius who will invent something to make it so it does not matter what other people think, and we can live our lives without interference.

Satoshi? Bitcoin?

[kiba]

These debates are a waste of time.

Arguments are soldiers in political argument. Politics is the mindkiller, etc.

[tomcollins]

Eventually it will hit a genius who will invent something to make it so it does not matter what other people think, and we can live our lives without interference.

Satoshi? Bitcoin?

I don't know enough about Satoshi to know his motivations, but it could be an example.

[tomcollins]

These debates are a waste of time.

Arguments are soldiers in political argument. Politics is the mindkiller, etc.

I disagree.  5 years ago, I was "lol anarchocapitalists'.

[BitterTea]

These debates are a waste of time.

Arguments are soldiers in political argument. Politics is the mindkiller, etc.

Kiba,

I appreciate that you are ideologically agnostic, but these debates such as these do have a purpose. As a Voluntaryist, this is one of the few methods available to me to affect change. I'll let the copypasta do the talking for me...

Voluntaryism is at once an end, a means, and an insight. It signifies the goal of an all voluntary society, one in which all interaction between individuals is based on voluntary exchange, and thus calls for the abolition of the State. Voluntaryism represents a way of achieving significant social change without resort to politics or violent revolution. Since voluntaryists recognize that government rests on mass acquiescence (the voluntaryist insight), they conclude that the only way to abolish government power is for the people at large to withdraw their cooperation. As a means, voluntaryism calls for peaceful persuasion, education, individual civil disobedience, and group nonviolent resistance to the State. Since voluntaryists see a direct connection between the means they use and the end they seek, they realize that only voluntary means can be used to attain the truly voluntary society. People cannot be coerced into being free. The very goal of an all voluntary society suggests its own means. The voluntaryist insight provides the only logical and consistent way of achieving liberty and abolishing the State.

[tomcollins]

These debates are a waste of time.

Arguments are soldiers in political argument. Politics is the mindkiller, etc.

Kiba,

I appreciate that you are ideologically agnostic, but these debates such as these do have a purpose. As a Voluntaryist, this is one of the few methods available to me to affect change. I'll let the copypasta do the talking for me...

Voluntaryism is at once an end, a means, and an insight. It signifies the goal of an all voluntary society, one in which all interaction between individuals is based on voluntary exchange, and thus calls for the abolition of the State. Voluntaryism represents a way of achieving significant social change without resort to politics or violent revolution. Since voluntaryists recognize that government rests on mass acquiescence (the voluntaryist insight), they conclude that the only way to abolish government power is for the people at large to withdraw their cooperation. As a means, voluntaryism calls for peaceful persuasion, education, individual civil disobedience, and group nonviolent resistance to the State. Since voluntaryists see a direct connection between the means they use and the end they seek, they realize that only voluntary means can be used to attain the truly voluntary society. People cannot be coerced into being free. The very goal of an all voluntary society suggests its own means. The voluntaryist insight provides the only logical and consistent way of achieving liberty and abolishing the State.

The other interesting thing is, although the person you are arguing with rarely changes his position, people reading threads DO change their positions more.

[BitterTea]

The other interesting thing is, although the person you are arguing with rarely changes his position, people reading threads DO change their positions more.

Exactly! Debates are about putting forth arguments that are convincing to the audience, not the debaters.

[kiba]

While I am sympathetic to the voluntaryist ideology, I just don't think rational debate is possible.


Hence, "Politics is the mindkiller".

[BitterTea]

While I am sympathetic to the voluntaryist ideology, I just don't think rational debate is possible.


Hence, "Politics is the mindkiller".

I think you're taking the Less Wrong article a little too literally, and in fact it seems to me that you are committing the same error of which it is warning. Your Blue/Green position is that rational debate is impossible. So you jump into otherwise somewhat rational debates and state that rational debate is not possible. Why not just go read something else instead?

If you truly think rational debate is impossible, you shouldn't be attempting to convince us so.

[tomcollins]

While I am sympathetic to the voluntaryist ideology, I just don't think rational debate is possible.


Hence, "Politics is the mindkiller".

I've seen rational debate with the right people.  It may or may not be possible here, or all the time here.  But it certainly is possible.

[The Script]

While the pragmatic belief that we cannot convince people may be true, it won't stop me from trying.  The Koch brothers, lol, like they support anarchy.  They just want *their* version of the state.

Fought and died for the services the state now render us?  If someone was stupid enough to get themselves killed so I could get a monopoly of service from someone, let them roll in their graves.  I do support those who died to *keep* a monopoly of power from interfering in our lives, though.

But you do not need to convince everyone.  You just need to convince a few people.  They can convince a few more.  Eventually it will grow, or it will not.  Eventually it will hit a genius who will invent something to make it so it does not matter what other people think, and we can live our lives without interference.

But there is no harm at all in teaching people that violence is wrong, even when its done by people with special uniforms.

(Emphasis mine)

Exactly!  I was just debating with a friend the other day whether or not taxes really are theft.  I had to start the argument by explaining to him why the State does not own all his possessions.  He was willing to admit they they owned all money and therefore all his possessions, but when I suggested that the State then owned him, he didn't like it.  The legitimacy of the State is so engrained in us that many people practically offer themselves up as voluntary serfs.

[djoot]

While I am sympathetic to the voluntaryist ideology, I just don't think rational debate is possible.


Hence, "Politics is the mindkiller".

There are a lot of people who, while not necessarily being big statists, just assume that the state is necessary and do not give it another thought. I sure didn't think about it before I found myself in discussions about the state with friends. After that it was just a question of knowing more economics and history before I was convinced that the state is not a public good but a public bad.

But yes, it is hard to convince anybody, especially if they believe that they owe something to the state because it gives them free 'education' or healthcare or whatever, and think that without the state people could not afford these things. I strongly believe that this is false and that everybody would be better off if we stopped believing in violence as a means to our ends.

[tomcollins]

While I am sympathetic to the voluntaryist ideology, I just don't think rational debate is possible.


Hence, "Politics is the mindkiller".

There are a lot of people who, while not necessarily being big statists, just assume that the state is necessary and do not give it another thought. I sure didn't think about it before I found myself in discussions about the state with friends. After that it was just a question of knowing more economics and history before I was convinced that the state is not a public good but a public bad.

But yes, it is hard to convince anybody, especially if they believe that they owe something to the state because it gives them free 'education' or healthcare or whatever, and think that without the state people could not afford these things. I strongly believe that this is false and that everybody would be better off if we stopped believing in violence as a means to our ends.

The biggest gap I think there is is that people think that people who hate the state don't care about poor people.  People who hate the state generally do so BECAUSE they care about the little guy.

[no to the gold cult]

These debates are a waste of time.

Arguments are soldiers in political argument. Politics is the mindkiller, etc.

Beats watching the royal wedding.

[no to the gold cult]

But you will get states anyway. Anarcho-Capitalists have a revolution or something, and society is delivered into a perfect competition of violence.

Perhaps people will get states.  If you destroyed every church, would religion go away?  Of course not.  You need to actually convince people not to be religious for it to be meaningful.  The state is just another religion.  Can you convince enough people?  Maybe, maybe not.

Though Anarcho-Capitalists are peace loving and think everyone should avoid violence, some people out there don't give a fuck.

And if those people are in the minority, life will not be pleasant for them.  If they are in the majority, then they will get away with it.

Weeks past, bands form, after a few months or years an oligopoly of violence forms. After a few decades... a vast monopoly of violence has formed, and makes sure everyone plays nice. It is essentially a state.

Again, tear down churches, new churches will be built.  Convince people to abandon religion, and they will not.

What's the difference from this state that has arisen after an anarcho-capitalist revolution and a subsequently perfectly competitive period of violent turmoil, and the states of today? (at least in the West, many parts of the world are still dealing with unrepresentative state power)

The states today are subject to a long history of mistakes and struggles where state power went massively wrong, had to be grappled with by the people, revolutionized and laws amended, made war for and made war against... movements raised and imperialisms rolled back, workers empowered and sections given the vote... until finally today we have.... Liberal Democracy. Oh well, a long way to go yet.

And the post anarcho-revolutionary state? Well, it gets to start from scratch, starting with the rise of some guy whose second name may as well be Caesar or Charlemagne or something and ending with some guy who may as well be called Mao, or Adolf, or Nixon. All the mistakes and horrors of centuries from scratch.

Again, see above.  Yes, if people reject violence on the whole, everyone will laugh at the next Caesar or Charlemagne.  If people support violence, then of course they will return.

I say let's evolve the states and fuck Year One, I say let's not smash it all down and start again, I say modify what we have. Improve it, it's worth fighting for and that's why it exists in the first place. There will always be a State, we should take responsibility for the things instead of pretending we owe nothing to history. We're products of history, sick and demented as it is.

The Koch Brothers et al are totally happy for you to throw your hands up in frustration and devote yourself to various solipsist delusions like children that have thrown their toys from the pram. Meanwhile untold millions that have fought and died for the services that the state now render us (where it's previous concerns were only for the welfare of kings and nobles) now roll in their graves. I'm against this.

While the pragmatic belief that we cannot convince people may be true, it won't stop me from trying.  The Koch brothers, lol, like they support anarchy.  They just want *their* version of the state.

Fought and died for the services the state now render us?  If someone was stupid enough to get themselves killed so I could get a monopoly of service from someone, let them roll in their graves.  I do support those who died to *keep* a monopoly of power from interfering in our lives, though.

But you do not need to convince everyone.  You just need to convince a few people.  They can convince a few more.  Eventually it will grow, or it will not.  Eventually it will hit a genius who will invent something to make it so it does not matter what other people think, and we can live our lives without interference.

But there is no harm at all in teaching people that violence is wrong, even when its done by people with special uniforms.

My point about the inevitable formation of states is not analogous to tearing down churches. Consider my earlier posts carefully as I have already explained the process. It's not a matter of some elaborate ideology imposed from on-high, it's a matter of practicality. Force, there are limited resources in the real world and violence can come about for all sorts of reasons, many of them irrational. Violence must be monopolized so that it can be minimized and removed from daily life. I define the monopolization of violence as the core function of the state, the role that defines a state as a state. You're deeply naive if you think violence can be a freely available resource for all and at the same time everyone will choose not to produce any in order to maximize their own utility.

The states central function is control of violence, you could say it levies a kind of surcharge on those that use violence, a charge heavy enough to ensure that few can see any profit by it, a monopoly enforced barrier to entry if you will. This control of violence is the core and definitive characteristic of state (and a role that will always be required in any human society of millions of individuals). The state is the mediator of last resort, therefore it accumulates a history of mediation and concession in the various quarrels and clashes of interest that occur within its borders that we may as well call laws and constitutions and so on. That's what a state is, a monopoly of violence and a mediator of last resort. To me it sounds silly for people to demand that violence should not be monopolized and there should be no such thing as a mediator of last resort.  Sure states can certainly go wrong, be corrupt and murderous, but all that (and who controls the state and to what end) is another issue entirely.

By the way I don't want to give the impression that I think people are all treacherous snakes or something, I'm just explaining specifically the role of the state. If I were to explain the role of a civic sewage system that would not be to say that I think the world is made of shit. If you want to talk about abolishing the state we should remind ourselves what these things essentially are. They are merely the fulfillment of a societal role.

Also you miss my point about the Koch Brothers and their like. I didn't say I think these billionaires are anarchists, it is precisely because they just want their version of the state that they'll happily throw money at the Tea Party all day. And if there was an Anarcho-Capitalist Party they'd probably shovel millions in that direction too, and with laughter in their eyes. That's precisely my point. Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist movements want to make a state where money alone rules and all former obligations painfully hewn from the stone of history by the common man and woman over generations can be abandoned so that the rich can expand and rule their private dictatorships unimpeded. This may not be what they think they're doing, the term 'useful idiot' comes to mind.

The popularity of Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism in America speaks to the political ignorance and class-unconsciousness that has so prevailed in that culture for decades. I blame corporate domination of the media and the two party system (The Party of Business Interests or the Business Interests Party).

Here in Europe where we were once literally ruled by kings and aristocrats (and still are forced to endure ridiculous amounts of media attention to their stupid royal weddings), even now centuries later very few people would be foolish enough to fall for the sort of nonsense ideas that seemed to have gained so much traction in the US. In the 'Land of the Free' they are basically calling for some sort of Absolute Market Theocracy, in classic Orwellian double-think language this is considered 'liberty', it's almost comical.

Anarchy by the way is a possible way of life, nomads for instance live that way, but Anarcho-Capitalism is a total oxymoron in a world where people do not live an ultra-mobile lifestyle as a matter of course..

Anarcho-Capitalism is a sort of (altered)Marxist delusion where the state is believed to exist only to serve capitalists (bankers) who control the means of production (means of transaction) and steal the fruit of the workers (entrepreneurs). Therefore abolish the state and some sort of stateless communist(capitalist) utopia will set in and all will live in non-coercive brotherhood for evermore at the end of history. Cute.

[fabianhjr]

[no to the gold cult]

 

[tomcollins]

My point about the inevitable formation of states is not analogous to tearing down churches. Consider my earlier posts carefully as I have already explained the process. It's not a matter of some elaborate ideology imposed from on-high, it's a matter of practicality. Force, there are limited resources in the real world and violence can come about for all sorts of reasons, many of them irrational. Violence must be monopolized so that it can be minimized and removed from daily life. I define the monopolization of violence as the core function of the state, the role that defines a state as a state. You're deeply naive if you think violence can be a freely available resource for all and at the same time everyone will choose not to produce any in order to maximize their own utility.

I guess we can agree to disagree about this.  Historical evidence favors me tremendously.  If there was benevolent dictator that could fairly handle this, sure, you have a great argument.  But the trouble is, Who will watch the Watchmen?  As long as those we put in charge are humans and subject to all these horrible things you find in humans, giving a certain group of them a monopoly on force just invites even more trouble.  If all men were angels, we wouldn't need government is your philosophy it seems.  But if a lot of men are devils, isn't that even more reason to NOT have a government and monopoly of violence?

Now there are not just two extremes (everyone does whatever they want vs. monopoly of violence).  Even today there is no monopoly of violence ( no world government).  There can be an "optimal" number of violent operators that is greater than 1 and less than 7 billion.  Specialization, division of labor and all that.

The states central function is control of violence, you could say it levies a kind of surcharge on those that use violence, a charge heavy enough to ensure that few can see any profit by it, a monopoly enforced barrier to entry if you will. This control of violence is the core and definitive characteristic of state (and a role that will always be required in any human society of millions of individuals). The state is the mediator of last resort, therefore it accumulates a history of mediation and concession in the various quarrels and clashes of interest that occur within its borders that we may as well call laws and constitutions and so on. That's what a state is, a monopoly of violence and a mediator of last resort. To me it sounds silly for people to demand that violence should not be monopolized and there should be no such thing as a mediator of last resort.  Sure states can certainly go wrong, be corrupt and murderous, but all that (and who controls the state and to what end) is another issue entirely.

Except a few DO see a profit from it, and a very large one.  Namely those who are the most politically connected.  Having a monopoly of violence means that they can do whatever they want, charge it to whoever they want, and reap the benefits.

By the way I don't want to give the impression that I think people are all treacherous snakes or something, I'm just explaining specifically the role of the state. If I were to explain the role of a civic sewage system that would not be to say that I think the world is made of shit. If you want to talk about abolishing the state we should remind ourselves what these things essentially are. They are merely the fulfillment of a societal role.

I agree.  Most people are generally decent, but will cheat if they can get away with it.  Sure, people like to be led, which is why government are successful.  They also like to boss other people around, so that's another benefit they provide to some people.

Also you miss my point about the Koch Brothers and their like. I didn't say I think these billionaires are anarchists, it is precisely because they just want their version of the state that they'll happily throw money at the Tea Party all day. And if there was an Anarcho-Capitalist Party they'd probably shovel millions in that direction too, and with laughter in their eyes. That's precisely my point. Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist movements want to make a state where money alone rules and all former obligations painfully hewn from the stone of history by the common man and woman over generations can be abandoned so that the rich can expand and rule their private dictatorships unimpeded. This may not be what they think they're doing, the term 'useful idiot' comes to mind.

No way the Koch brothers would go after a non-state.  They love the state.  They just want it to put money in their pockets rather than the other way around.  It's my belief that they try to lure Libertarians away from useful endeavors and either put them in a rubber room doing useless things or trying to trick them into siding with Republicans.

The popularity of Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism in America speaks to the political ignorance and class-unconsciousness that has so prevailed in that culture for decades. I blame corporate domination of the media and the two party system (The Party of Business Interests or the Business Interests Party).

Here in Europe where we were once literally ruled by kings and aristocrats (and still are forced to endure ridiculous amounts of media attention to their stupid royal weddings), even now centuries later very few people would be foolish enough to fall for the sort of nonsense ideas that seemed to have gained so much traction in the US. In the 'Land of the Free' they are basically calling for some sort of Absolute Market Theocracy, in classic Orwellian double-think language this is considered 'liberty', it's almost comical.

Anarchy by the way is a possible way of life, nomads for instance live that way, but Anarcho-Capitalism is a total oxymoron in a world where people do not live an ultra-mobile lifestyle as a matter of course..

Anarcho-Capitalism is a sort of (altered)Marxist delusion where the state is believed to exist only to serve capitalists (bankers) who control the means of production (means of transaction) and steal the fruit of the workers (entrepreneurs). Therefore abolish the state and some sort of stateless communist(capitalist) utopia will set in and all will live in non-coercive brotherhood for evermore at the end of history. Cute.

That's where there is a big difference.  Marxism assumes people are angels and won't cheat.  Anarcho-Capitalism assumes people are self-interested and will do things in their own interest.  Without a central authority to cheaply interfere with others, those who wish to enact violence must pay the full cost (no one is profiting from the Iraq war if they had to pay for it themselves, for example), and it becomes unprofitable.  If you have suckers to pay the cost and get none of the benefit (taxpayers), you can get away with that kind of stuff, and profit very well (see Xe).

[luv2drnkbr]

So in the video posted, Friedman admitted that he had no clue how the NYSE and DeBeers worked out so well.  Let's say they're flukes.  Even if they have a formula, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the free-marketers and say that those two are a statistical fluke, and will happen rarely.  (And if they aren't a fluke, then more like them will pop up SOONER, hence calling the fluke a "benefit of the doubt".)  But then, given enough time, monopolies will form to cover any and all industry.  Then, as monopolies, they make the cost of entering that market much higher, effectively shutting out new competition, because it's just cheaper to continue to use them.  Of course the cost to use them won't be too high, because they want to maintain monopoly, but it will still be artificially higher than it should be, and not because of the value of the goods to the consumer.  This point has never been addressed to my knowledge, and it is a perfect reason why certain areas need to be socialized, like police and roads and education (and health care).

[tomcollins]

So in the video posted, Friedman admitted that he had no clue how the NYSE and DeBeers worked out so well.  Let's say they're flukes.  Even if they have a formula, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the free-marketers and say that those two are a statistical fluke, and will happen rarely.  (And if they aren't a fluke, then more like them will pop up SOONER, hence calling the fluke a "benefit of the doubt".)  But then, given enough time, monopolies will form to cover any and all industry.  Then, as monopolies, they make the cost of entering that market much higher, effectively shutting out new competition, because it's just cheaper to continue to use them.  Of course the cost to use them won't be too high, because they want to maintain monopoly, but it will still be artificially higher than it should be, and not because of the value of the goods to the consumer.  This point has never been addressed to my knowledge, and it is a perfect reason why certain areas need to be socialized, like police and roads and education (and health care).

DeBeers had people break the cartel and is no more.  Plus, synthetic diamonds.

NYSE has several competitors.

Seems like they aren't very good examples.  You can make a monopoly for a short period of time, but as soon as you start charging too much, competitors can creep in.  How can they make the cost of entering any higher without using force?

Why aren't we seeing more monopolies?  Is it because of Sherman?

Strange that roads, police, and health care are all areas that have some of the least competitive prices.  Let's make everything a monopoly so we don't have to pay high monopoly prices!


If you want to have police and roads and education subsidized for the poor, I can at least understand the justification.  But making a monopoly to make things cheaper never works out as planned.  Competition is beautiful.

[kiba]

Schools suck/stagnate.

I mean, why do we have to listen teachers yammer in lecture? Just record the lecture of the best teacher and use it to teach everybody about topics. Plus, that mean no rushing to write down notes.

[tomcollins]

Schools suck/stagnate.

I mean, why do we have to listen teachers yammer in lecture? Just record the lecture of the best teacher and use it to teach everybody about topics. Plus, that mean no rushing to write down notes.

I never got much out of lectures anyway.  But there is some value in tutoring IMO and personal interaction.  Watch a lecture, then have less skilled tutors around to help out.

[no to the gold cult]

My point about the inevitable formation of states is not analogous to tearing down churches. Consider my earlier posts carefully as I have already explained the process. It's not a matter of some elaborate ideology imposed from on-high, it's a matter of practicality. Force, there are limited resources in the real world and violence can come about for all sorts of reasons, many of them irrational. Violence must be monopolized so that it can be minimized and removed from daily life. I define the monopolization of violence as the core function of the state, the role that defines a state as a state. You're deeply naive if you think violence can be a freely available resource for all and at the same time everyone will choose not to produce any in order to maximize their own utility.

I guess we can agree to disagree about this.  Historical evidence favors me tremendously.  If there was benevolent dictator that could fairly handle this, sure, you have a great argument.  But the trouble is, Who will watch the Watchmen?  As long as those we put in charge are humans and subject to all these horrible things you find in humans, giving a certain group of them a monopoly on force just invites even more trouble.  If all men were angels, we wouldn't need government is your philosophy it seems.  But if a lot of men are devils, isn't that even more reason to NOT have a government and monopoly of violence?

Now there are not just two extremes (everyone does whatever they want vs. monopoly of violence).  Even today there is no monopoly of violence ( no world government).  There can be an "optimal" number of violent operators that is greater than 1 and less than 7 billion.  Specialization, division of labor and all that.

The states central function is control of violence, you could say it levies a kind of surcharge on those that use violence, a charge heavy enough to ensure that few can see any profit by it, a monopoly enforced barrier to entry if you will. This control of violence is the core and definitive characteristic of state (and a role that will always be required in any human society of millions of individuals). The state is the mediator of last resort, therefore it accumulates a history of mediation and concession in the various quarrels and clashes of interest that occur within its borders that we may as well call laws and constitutions and so on. That's what a state is, a monopoly of violence and a mediator of last resort. To me it sounds silly for people to demand that violence should not be monopolized and there should be no such thing as a mediator of last resort.  Sure states can certainly go wrong, be corrupt and murderous, but all that (and who controls the state and to what end) is another issue entirely.

Except a few DO see a profit from it, and a very large one.  Namely those who are the most politically connected.  Having a monopoly of violence means that they can do whatever they want, charge it to whoever they want, and reap the benefits.

By the way I don't want to give the impression that I think people are all treacherous snakes or something, I'm just explaining specifically the role of the state. If I were to explain the role of a civic sewage system that would not be to say that I think the world is made of shit. If you want to talk about abolishing the state we should remind ourselves what these things essentially are. They are merely the fulfillment of a societal role.

I agree.  Most people are generally decent, but will cheat if they can get away with it.  Sure, people like to be led, which is why government are successful.  They also like to boss other people around, so that's another benefit they provide to some people.

Also you miss my point about the Koch Brothers and their like. I didn't say I think these billionaires are anarchists, it is precisely because they just want their version of the state that they'll happily throw money at the Tea Party all day. And if there was an Anarcho-Capitalist Party they'd probably shovel millions in that direction too, and with laughter in their eyes. That's precisely my point. Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist movements want to make a state where money alone rules and all former obligations painfully hewn from the stone of history by the common man and woman over generations can be abandoned so that the rich can expand and rule their private dictatorships unimpeded. This may not be what they think they're doing, the term 'useful idiot' comes to mind.

No way the Koch brothers would go after a non-state.  They love the state.  They just want it to put money in their pockets rather than the other way around.  It's my belief that they try to lure Libertarians away from useful endeavors and either put them in a rubber room doing useless things or trying to trick them into siding with Republicans.

The popularity of Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism in America speaks to the political ignorance and class-unconsciousness that has so prevailed in that culture for decades. I blame corporate domination of the media and the two party system (The Party of Business Interests or the Business Interests Party).

Here in Europe where we were once literally ruled by kings and aristocrats (and still are forced to endure ridiculous amounts of media attention to their stupid royal weddings), even now centuries later very few people would be foolish enough to fall for the sort of nonsense ideas that seemed to have gained so much traction in the US. In the 'Land of the Free' they are basically calling for some sort of Absolute Market Theocracy, in classic Orwellian double-think language this is considered 'liberty', it's almost comical.

Anarchy by the way is a possible way of life, nomads for instance live that way, but Anarcho-Capitalism is a total oxymoron in a world where people do not live an ultra-mobile lifestyle as a matter of course..

Anarcho-Capitalism is a sort of (altered)Marxist delusion where the state is believed to exist only to serve capitalists (bankers) who control the means of production (means of transaction) and steal the fruit of the workers (entrepreneurs). Therefore abolish the state and some sort of stateless communist(capitalist) utopia will set in and all will live in non-coercive brotherhood for evermore at the end of history. Cute.

That's where there is a big difference.  Marxism assumes people are angels and won't cheat.  Anarcho-Capitalism assumes people are self-interested and will do things in their own interest.  Without a central authority to cheaply interfere with others, those who wish to enact violence must pay the full cost (no one is profiting from the Iraq war if they had to pay for it themselves, for example), and it becomes unprofitable.  If you have suckers to pay the cost and get none of the benefit (taxpayers), you can get away with that kind of stuff, and profit very well (see Xe).

You maintain this idea that government is a massive world-wide conspiracy and I maintain it is merely how large populations of human beings conduct ourselves. Every society in history has had some form of government. A cheif, a village elder, a council of elders, a king or queen, a ceaser or an emperor, a president, a chairman... your argument makes as much sense to me as saying "because some parents abuse their children, parenting must be banned". We are not children, that's why I personally believe in a democratic process, because the people must take control of and responsibility for their government.

Yes I know that the world is an oligopoly of violence, it used to be a monopolistic duopoly but then came Glasnost. Obviously I am talking here in basic terms at the local scale. Globally, yes it's more like an oligopoly.

And again, yes governments go wrong, yes we have a long way to go, I am still angry and bitter that a smiling asshole and a smirking cowboy were able to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people based on lies, and still are not in prison. You probably wouldn't like my solution though; a court where even the leaders of the US and the UK can be held to account for their actions. Long way to go.

A lot of what you say seems deeply embedded in your particular psychological make-up in relation to ideas about authority figures and is not for me to address.

However the Koch Brothers, I say again, I don't think of them as anarchists etc. They want the State that suits them, and Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists and Tea-Party types are precisely the people that can help them get it as they want to tear down all the things that impede the will of billionaires and oblige the government to even the pretense of serving anyone that could not afford their own private army.

[BitterTea]

Every society in history has had some form of government. A cheif, a village elder, a council of elders, a king or queen, a ceaser or an emperor, a president, a chairman...

There are two reasons why this is wrong.

1) A government (or state) is merely an entity that, in a given geographical area, has a perceived legitimate monopoly on the initiation of force.

2) There have been many stateless societies throughout history. Here are some examples, all of which fulfill the criteria of having no monopoly on the initiation of force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth#Go.C3.B0or.C3.B0_system

[Sjalq]

Name me some natural, state unsupported monopolies please "no to the gold cult"

History is littered with unsuccessful attempts to corner markets without the help of government coercion. Reading up on the "Robber Barons" should clear up this matter.

[no to the gold cult]

Every society in history has had some form of government. A cheif, a village elder, a council of elders, a king or queen, a ceaser or an emperor, a president, a chairman...

There are two reasons why this is wrong.

1) A government (or state) is merely an entity that, in a given geographical area, has a perceived legitimate monopoly on the initiation of force.

2) There have been many stateless societies throughout history. Here are some examples, all of which fulfill the criteria of having no monopoly on the initiation of force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth#Go.C3.B0or.C3.B0_system

Actually I agree with this. I meant every society in history has some sort of means of 'governing' itself.

[BitterTea]

Actually I agree with this. I meant every society in history has some sort of means of 'governing' itself.

I have no problem with social structures that afford protection or facilitate dispute resolution. In fact these things are necessary and are what I think you refer to as "means of governing itself". Most people believe or assume that the state, which requires a monopoly on aggression, is the only way to provide those services. I believe this to be incorrect, and attempt to persuade people that it is possible to provision law and law enforcement in a manner that is not inherently violent.

[fabianhjr]

Schools suck/stagnate.

I mean, why do we have to listen teachers yammer in lecture? Just record the lecture of the best teacher and use it to teach everybody about topics. Plus, that mean no rushing to write down notes.

I never got much out of lectures anyway.  But there is some value in tutoring IMO and personal interaction.  Watch a lecture, then have less skilled tutors around to help out.

It exists, it is called Khan Academy. I use it for maths and occasionally other vids. I suggested them to accept Bitcoin donations, awol/no response after a month.

[dvigatel]

How would Anarcho-capitalists handle the emergence of monopolies?

I don't know, but most anarchists appear willing to counter monopolies with some mixture of autonomy from them, boycott of their products and services (including deliberately paying a higher price for a more balanced future), competition with them, and sabotage of their infrastructure.

Furthermore, it might be argued that if anything with an "anarcho" prefix ends up as the prevalent or widespread attitude... then by definition, protections of certain privileges (like highly indirect ownership of far-away assets) is likely to be poorly recognized, if recognized at all. Not the best ground for monopoly-building.

[berlin]

I found this essay relevant to this thread, and quite amusing-

MONOPOLIES

 Austrians believe that the government destroys the market process for several reasons. Rockwell writes:
 "One obvious example… takes place at the Justice Department's antitrust division. There the bureaucrats pretend to know the proper structure of industry, what kind of mergers and acquisitions harm the economy, who has too much market share or too little, and what the relevant market is. This represents what Hayek called the pretense of knowledge.

 "The correct relationship between competitors can only be worked out through buying and selling, not bureaucratic fiat. Austrian economists, in particular Rothbard, argue that the only real monopolies are created by government. Markets are too competitive to allow any monopolies to be sustained." (1)
 The claim that governments cause monopolies defies the historical evidence. History actually shows the opposite: the more unregulated the market is, the worse the problem of monopolies.

 However, the Austrian claim is not wholly without merit. Utilities are examples of monopolies run or regulated by the government (although they are natural monopolies, and privatizing them doesn't work, as Britain found out in the 80s). Often companies persuade governments to erect barriers of market entry to potential competitors. Sometimes government subsidies allow one company to overpower its competitors. But such cases are usually the result of money-based lobbying, which is a corruption of the system. Corruption in the public sector no more "refutes" its central principle than does corruption in the private sector. The solution to corruption is to eliminate it by enforcing better laws. European democracies offer broad practical evidence that this sort of corruption can be greatly reduced.

 But this Austrian critique completely ignores another, more common type of monopoly: that which forms naturally on the unregulated market. There are many reasons for this tendency, ranging from "it takes money to make money" to the greater efficiency of large corporations. Without antitrust laws or some other countervailing market force, growing companies will not stop until they become monopolies or oligopolies.

 The height of monopoly growth and abuse in the U.S. coincided with its greatest period of laissez-faire, or government nonintervention in the market. Known as the Gilded Age (the period between the Civil War and World War I), this period saw the phenomenal rise of the Robber Barons and their great trusts (monopolies). John D. Rockefeller monopolized oil under his Standard Oil Company; J.P. Morgan dominated finance; Andrew Carnegie, steel; James Hill, railroads. Historians have well chronicled the ruthlessness of these men -- Morgan once remarked that "I don't know as I want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do. I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do." Rockefeller's father once boasted that "I cheat my boys every chance I get, I want to make 'em sharp." These men lived for market conquest, and plotted takeovers like military strategy.

 In the late 19th century, trusts formed also in wheat, fruit, meat, salt, sugar refining, lumber, electrical power, rubber, nickel, paper, lead, gypsum, iron, cottonseed oil, linseed oil, whiskey distilling, cord manufacture -- and many others. Once a trust emerged, it would raise its prices and drop its quality of service, as well as engage in unfair trading practices that drove other firms out of business. The abuses of these monopolies became so great that they became a national scandal. So deep was antitrust sentiment that when both houses of Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, there was only a single dissenting vote! (2) But U.S. presidents did not bother to enforce it, and the monopoly problem continued to worsen.

 The worst period of monopoly formation was between 1898 and 1902. Prior to this, there was an average of 46 major industrial mergers a year. But after 1898, this soared to 531 a year. (3) By 1904, the top 4 percent of American businesses produced 57 percent of America's total industrial production, and a single firm would dominate at least 60 percent of production in 50 different industries. (4) The power of these monopolies easily dwarfed the governments that oversaw them. As early as 1888, a Boston railroad company had gross receipts of $40 million, whereas the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts had receipts of only $7 million. (5) And when Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan united in 1901 to create U.S. Steel, the result was an international sensation. Cosmopolitan magazine wrote:

 "The world, on the 3rd day of March, 1901, ceased to be ruled by… so-called statesmen. True, there were marionettes still figuring in Congress and as kings. But they were in place simply to carry out the orders of the world's real rulers -- those who controlled the concentrated portion of the money supply." (6)
 The role of government in all this was to stand back and let this market process happen. It wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt launched his great "trust-busting" campaign in 1902 that this process was reversed. Actual enforcement of the Sherman Act reduced monopolies until the Roaring 20s, when laissez-faire policies again returned to Washington. Over that decade, about 1,200 mergers swallowed up more than 6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations controlled over half of all American industry. (7) The New Deal era ushered in yet another era of antitrust policy, again reducing the percentage of monopolies. This was followed by the Reagan era, a period which saw both massive deregulation and another frenzy of mergers and takeovers. In 1988, Federal Trade Commissioner Andrew Strenio remarked: "Since Fiscal Year 1980, there has been a drop of more than 40 percent in the work years allocated to antitrust enforcement. In the same period, merger filings skyrocketed to more than 320 percent of their Fiscal Year 1980 level."

 Two objections are possible here. The first is that these growing corporations may have captured government and then used it as a tool to capture the market. Those familiar with the Golden Age and Roaring 20s know, however, that governments were basically bribed to stand back and do nothing. They passed very little legislation that actively prevented any firms from entering the market and competing. The Reagan era was different, in that corporate lobbyists began using government as a proactive agent to discourage competition. Nonetheless, the periods of government trust-busting show the proper role of government, and its effectiveness in restoring market competition.

 The second objection is that a wave of mergers may result in a more natural and efficient equilibrium of larger players, and this could be beneficial for the economy. The result doesn't have to be a monopoly -- perhaps just an oligopoly. The problem is that at the top end, mergers become increasingly harmful to the economy, with monopolies merely representing the worst result. Even oligopolies engage in price-gouging and collaboration. A natural equilibrium hardly represents the best equilibrium -- as recessions and depressions show.

 How do Austrians deal with the historical correlation between laissez-faire and monopolies? By denying it, of course. The presence of any government at all proves that their conditions of a free market were not met, so the entire correlation is rejected. This is like someone attempting to argue that not watering a plant will result in the fastest growth. And when you point out to him that there is a correlation between the amount of water given to a plant and its rate of growth, he dismisses these experiments on the basis that they all used water.

[BitterTea]

I'm on my phone so this reply will be terse, but there are two important critiques of the view expressed above.

1) Were these trusts providing better service at a lower cost than their competitors? Ultimately, that is the most important question.
2) Were their monopoly positions sustainable? That is, absent government intervention, wouldn't the ability of smaller competitors to more easily adapt to new markets and technologies allow them to efficiently compete with the trusts?

[Basiley]

so, actually nothing new/unique in BitCoin-related/affiliated society/economic "in general".
so groundless name-calling/cursing/FUD/black-PR in topicstart is groundless, IMO.

[berlin]

I'm on my phone so this reply will be terse, but there are two important critiques of the view expressed above.

1) Were these trusts providing better service at a lower cost than their competitors? Ultimately, that is the most important question.
2) Were their monopoly positions sustainable? That is, absent government intervention, wouldn't the ability of smaller competitors to more easily adapt to new markets and technologies allow them to efficiently compete with the trusts?

I think these three paragraphs address your questions-

Once a trust emerged, it would raise its prices and drop its quality of service, as well as engage in unfair trading practices that drove other firms out of business. The abuses of these monopolies became so great that they became a national scandal. So deep was antitrust sentiment that when both houses of Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, there was only a single dissenting vote! (2) But U.S. presidents did not bother to enforce it, and the monopoly problem continued to worsen.

 The worst period of monopoly formation was between 1898 and 1902. Prior to this, there was an average of 46 major industrial mergers a year. But after 1898, this soared to 531 a year. (3) By 1904, the top 4 percent of American businesses produced 57 percent of America's total industrial production, and a single firm would dominate at least 60 percent of production in 50 different industries. (4) The power of these monopolies easily dwarfed the governments that oversaw them. As early as 1888, a Boston railroad company had gross receipts of $40 million, whereas the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts had receipts of only $7 million. (5) And when Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan united in 1901 to create U.S. Steel, the result was an international sensation. Cosmopolitan magazine wrote:

 "The world, on the 3rd day of March, 1901, ceased to be ruled by… so-called statesmen. True, there were marionettes still figuring in Congress and as kings. But they were in place simply to carry out the orders of the world's real rulers -- those who controlled the concentrated portion of the money supply."

[mike1210]

I found this essay relevant to this thread, and quite amusing-

Steve Kangas used to spread lies and disinformation on Usenet until he traveled to Pittsburgh one day and shot himself in a restroom outside the office of Richard Mellon Scaife.

As for monopolies, one of the poster children for evil monopolies was John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, whose great crime against humanity was slashing the price of refined petrol due to technological innovation. Standard Oil never had monopoly pricing power.

[mike1210]

Please don't conflate "anarcho"-capitalism with anarchism.

If you'd like to learn about anarchism, even for the sake of improving your arguments, I'd recommend An Anarchist FAQ.

To smash private property, you need a state. Capitalism, on the other hand, exists independent of the state. Given what happened in Spain, where the first thing the so-called "anarchists" did was set up a police force with exclusive privileges to use violence, nobody buys the socialist "anarchist" line anymore.

[BitterTea]

What is the purpose of anti-trust legislation? Is it to protect consumers from monopoly pricing, or protect competitors that cannot compete? It seems to me that the goals are conflicting. By forcing "monopolies" to charge higher prices, it hurts the consumer, though it helps their competitors.

This is a good read.

The theory of predatory pricing has always seemed to have a grain of truth to it--at least to noneconomists--but research over the past 35 years has shown that predatory pricing as a strategy for monopolizing an industry is irra- tional, that there has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing, and that claims of predatory pricing are typically made by com- petitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combatting "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer, as Harold Demsetz noted.

Even in the cases where a competitor seemed to have been eliminated by low prices, "in no case were all of the competitors eliminated."(25) Thus, there was no monopoly, just lower prices. Three cases seem to have facilitated a merger, but mergers are typically an efficient alternative to bankruptcy, not a route to monopoly. In those cases, as in the others, the mergers did not result in anything remotely resembling a monopolistic industry, as defined by Koller (i.e., one with a single producer).

In sum, despite over 100 federal antitrust cases based on predatory pricing, Koller found absolutely no evidence of any monopoly having been established by predatory pricing between 1890 and 1970. Yet at the time Koller's study was published (1971), predatory pricing had long been part of the conventional wisdom. The work of McGee, Elzinga, and other analysts had not yet gained wide recognition.

The search for the elusive predatory pricer has not been any more successful in the two decades since Koller's study appeared. The complete lack of evidence of predatory pricing, moreover, has not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (1986), the Court demonstrated knowledge of the above-mentioned research in declaring, effectively, that predatory pricing was about as common as unicorn sightings.

Zenith had accused Matsushita and several other Japanese microelectronics companies of engaging in predatory pricing--of using profits from the Japanese market to subsidize below-cost pricing of color television sets in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled against Zenith, recognizing in its majority opinion that

a predatory pricing conspiracy is by nature speculative. Any agreement to price below the competitive level requires the conspirators to forgo profits that free competition would offer them. The forgone profits may be considered an investment in the future. For the investment to be rational, the conspirators must have a reasonable expectation of recovering, in the form of later monopoly profits, more than the losses suffered.(26)

The Court also noted that "the success of such schemes is inherently uncertain: the short-run loss is definite, but the long-run gain depends on successfully neutralizing the competition."(27) The Court continues, "There is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful."(28)

[mouser98]

for any given market sector, there is an ideal size for a company, where it achieves an economy of scale, without becoming overburdened with managerial inefficiency.  a freed market will reward the companies that find the correct size, and punish those who become too large.  thus, no monopoly is sustainable without government intervention.

[LMGTFY]

Please don't conflate "anarcho"-capitalism with anarchism.

If you'd like to learn about anarchism, even for the sake of improving your arguments, I'd recommend An Anarchist FAQ.

To smash private property, you need a state. Capitalism, on the other hand, exists independent of the state. Given what happened in Spain, where the first thing the so-called "anarchists" did was set up a police force with exclusive privileges to use violence, nobody buys the socialist "anarchist" line anymore.

Off topic, but I'd be interested to learn more about this police force because it's not something I've previously heard about. I know that the Generalidad de Cataluna (the Trotskyist and Communist government in Barcelona, which the anarchists broadly supported) maintained the Civil Guard, and that after the PSUC (Communists) gained increasing power just before the 1937 May Days they brought in Assault Guards (to suppress first the Trotskyist POUM, and then the anarchist CNT/FAI), but so far as I know the only police were government police. And all of the militias - from CNT/FAI and POUM militias though to the International Brigades and other Communist militias - they all were armed, they all had the right to use force, so I'm not sure I understand "exclusive privileges to use violence" - the Spanish Republic was in the midst of a civil war against Fascism - the Republic in general, and the Generalidad in particular, all condoned widespread arming of the population.

[shady financier]

What is the purpose of anti-trust legislation? Is it to protect consumers from monopoly pricing, or protect competitors that cannot compete? It seems to me that the goals are conflicting. By forcing "monopolies" to charge higher prices, it hurts the consumer, though it helps their competitors.

This is a good read.

The theory of predatory pricing has always seemed to have a grain of truth to it--at least to noneconomists--but research over the past 35 years has shown that predatory pricing as a strategy for monopolizing an industry is irra- tional, that there has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing, and that claims of predatory pricing are typically made by com- petitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combatting "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer, as Harold Demsetz noted.

Even in the cases where a competitor seemed to have been eliminated by low prices, "in no case were all of the competitors eliminated."(25) Thus, there was no monopoly, just lower prices. Three cases seem to have facilitated a merger, but mergers are typically an efficient alternative to bankruptcy, not a route to monopoly. In those cases, as in the others, the mergers did not result in anything remotely resembling a monopolistic industry, as defined by Koller (i.e., one with a single producer).

In sum, despite over 100 federal antitrust cases based on predatory pricing, Koller found absolutely no evidence of any monopoly having been established by predatory pricing between 1890 and 1970. Yet at the time Koller's study was published (1971), predatory pricing had long been part of the conventional wisdom. The work of McGee, Elzinga, and other analysts had not yet gained wide recognition.

The search for the elusive predatory pricer has not been any more successful in the two decades since Koller's study appeared. The complete lack of evidence of predatory pricing, moreover, has not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (1986), the Court demonstrated knowledge of the above-mentioned research in declaring, effectively, that predatory pricing was about as common as unicorn sightings.

Zenith had accused Matsushita and several other Japanese microelectronics companies of engaging in predatory pricing--of using profits from the Japanese market to subsidize below-cost pricing of color television sets in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled against Zenith, recognizing in its majority opinion that

a predatory pricing conspiracy is by nature speculative. Any agreement to price below the competitive level requires the conspirators to forgo profits that free competition would offer them. The forgone profits may be considered an investment in the future. For the investment to be rational, the conspirators must have a reasonable expectation of recovering, in the form of later monopoly profits, more than the losses suffered.(26)

The Court also noted that "the success of such schemes is inherently uncertain: the short-run loss is definite, but the long-run gain depends on successfully neutralizing the competition."(27) The Court continues, "There is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful."(28)

That's what Wal Mart and their ilk want you to think, if you beleive this crap you are either extremely naive, or some sort of lobbyist and therefore paid to beleive it.

[gene]

What is the purpose of anti-trust legislation? Is it to protect consumers from monopoly pricing, or protect competitors that cannot compete? It seems to me that the goals are conflicting. By forcing "monopolies" to charge higher prices, it hurts the consumer, though it helps their competitors.

This is a good read.

The theory of predatory pricing has always seemed to have a grain of truth to it--at least to noneconomists--but research over the past 35 years has shown that predatory pricing as a strategy for monopolizing an industry is irra- tional, that there has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing, and that claims of predatory pricing are typically made by com- petitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combatting "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer, as Harold Demsetz noted.

Even in the cases where a competitor seemed to have been eliminated by low prices, "in no case were all of the competitors eliminated."(25) Thus, there was no monopoly, just lower prices. Three cases seem to have facilitated a merger, but mergers are typically an efficient alternative to bankruptcy, not a route to monopoly. In those cases, as in the others, the mergers did not result in anything remotely resembling a monopolistic industry, as defined by Koller (i.e., one with a single producer).

In sum, despite over 100 federal antitrust cases based on predatory pricing, Koller found absolutely no evidence of any monopoly having been established by predatory pricing between 1890 and 1970. Yet at the time Koller's study was published (1971), predatory pricing had long been part of the conventional wisdom. The work of McGee, Elzinga, and other analysts had not yet gained wide recognition.

The search for the elusive predatory pricer has not been any more successful in the two decades since Koller's study appeared. The complete lack of evidence of predatory pricing, moreover, has not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (1986), the Court demonstrated knowledge of the above-mentioned research in declaring, effectively, that predatory pricing was about as common as unicorn sightings.

Zenith had accused Matsushita and several other Japanese microelectronics companies of engaging in predatory pricing--of using profits from the Japanese market to subsidize below-cost pricing of color television sets in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled against Zenith, recognizing in its majority opinion that

a predatory pricing conspiracy is by nature speculative. Any agreement to price below the competitive level requires the conspirators to forgo profits that free competition would offer them. The forgone profits may be considered an investment in the future. For the investment to be rational, the conspirators must have a reasonable expectation of recovering, in the form of later monopoly profits, more than the losses suffered.(26)

The Court also noted that "the success of such schemes is inherently uncertain: the short-run loss is definite, but the long-run gain depends on successfully neutralizing the competition."(27) The Court continues, "There is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful."(28)

That's what Wal Mart and their ilk want you to think, if you beleive this crap you are either extremely naive, or some sort of lobbyist and therefore paid to beleive it.

This is absolutely what they believe. They aren't shills. They aren't naive, either. They're just brainwashed and have been turned into ruthless greed-machines. The most pathetic part is that they will never be "inside." No riches. No freedom. Just "useful idiots" who will someday have to contemplate the desert that they helped create. Except that even then, they won't see their own crucial roles in bringing about ruin.

[stillfire]

That's what Wal Mart and their ilk want you to think, if you beleive this crap you are either extremely naive, or some sort of lobbyist and therefore paid to beleive it.

This is absolutely what they believe. They aren't shills. They aren't naive, either. They're just brainwashed and have been turned into ruthless greed-machines. The most pathetic part is that they will never be "inside." No riches. No freedom. Just "useful idiots" who will someday have to contemplate the desert that they helped create. Except that even then, they won't see their own crucial roles in bringing about ruin.

You might not like it but the reality is that people want Walmart. They will weather awful service for cheap prices. Some opponents get emotional about Walmart's size because they equate big with bad and a somehow unfair loss of choice, but the fact of the matter is that choice has a cost. And unfortunately, as a general rule, people don't want to pay for it.

No amount of good intentions and emotion will change that you, the planned market advocate, want something other people do not want to pay for. You might be successful in hiding the cost and forcing them to pay for it through government lobbying and subsequent laws, but you might want to ask yourself why force is required in the first place. If you were truly on the side of the majority, a TV ad for a more expensive competitor with greater choice would have sufficed.

[Anonymous]

What is the purpose of anti-trust legislation? Is it to protect consumers from monopoly pricing, or protect competitors that cannot compete? It seems to me that the goals are conflicting. By forcing "monopolies" to charge higher prices, it hurts the consumer, though it helps their competitors.

This is a good read.

The theory of predatory pricing has always seemed to have a grain of truth to it--at least to noneconomists--but research over the past 35 years has shown that predatory pricing as a strategy for monopolizing an industry is irra- tional, that there has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing, and that claims of predatory pricing are typically made by com- petitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combatting "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer, as Harold Demsetz noted.

Even in the cases where a competitor seemed to have been eliminated by low prices, "in no case were all of the competitors eliminated."(25) Thus, there was no monopoly, just lower prices. Three cases seem to have facilitated a merger, but mergers are typically an efficient alternative to bankruptcy, not a route to monopoly. In those cases, as in the others, the mergers did not result in anything remotely resembling a monopolistic industry, as defined by Koller (i.e., one with a single producer).

In sum, despite over 100 federal antitrust cases based on predatory pricing, Koller found absolutely no evidence of any monopoly having been established by predatory pricing between 1890 and 1970. Yet at the time Koller's study was published (1971), predatory pricing had long been part of the conventional wisdom. The work of McGee, Elzinga, and other analysts had not yet gained wide recognition.

The search for the elusive predatory pricer has not been any more successful in the two decades since Koller's study appeared. The complete lack of evidence of predatory pricing, moreover, has not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (1986), the Court demonstrated knowledge of the above-mentioned research in declaring, effectively, that predatory pricing was about as common as unicorn sightings.

Zenith had accused Matsushita and several other Japanese microelectronics companies of engaging in predatory pricing--of using profits from the Japanese market to subsidize below-cost pricing of color television sets in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled against Zenith, recognizing in its majority opinion that

a predatory pricing conspiracy is by nature speculative. Any agreement to price below the competitive level requires the conspirators to forgo profits that free competition would offer them. The forgone profits may be considered an investment in the future. For the investment to be rational, the conspirators must have a reasonable expectation of recovering, in the form of later monopoly profits, more than the losses suffered.(26)

The Court also noted that "the success of such schemes is inherently uncertain: the short-run loss is definite, but the long-run gain depends on successfully neutralizing the competition."(27) The Court continues, "There is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful."(28)

That's what Wal Mart and their ilk want you to think, if you beleive this crap you are either extremely naive, or some sort of lobbyist and therefore paid to beleive it.

That doesn't mean it isn't true. Objectively, these natural monopolies bring lower prices.

[shady financier]

That's what Wal Mart and their ilk want you to think, if you beleive this crap you are either extremely naive, or some sort of lobbyist and therefore paid to beleive it.

This is absolutely what they believe. They aren't shills. They aren't naive, either. They're just brainwashed and have been turned into ruthless greed-machines. The most pathetic part is that they will never be "inside." No riches. No freedom. Just "useful idiots" who will someday have to contemplate the desert that they helped create. Except that even then, they won't see their own crucial roles in bringing about ruin.

You might not like it but the reality is that people want Walmart. They will weather awful service for cheap prices. Some opponents get emotional about Walmart's size because they equate big with bad and a somehow unfair loss of choice, but the fact of the matter is that choice has a cost. And unfortunately, as a general rule, people don't want to pay for it.

No amount of good intentions and emotion will change that you, the planned market advocate, want something other people do not want to pay for. You might be successful in hiding the cost and forcing them to pay for it through government lobbying and subsequent laws, but you might want to ask yourself why force is required in the first place. If you were truly on the side of the majority, a TV ad for a more expensive competitor with greater choice would have sufficed.

Said with the fixed-eyed certainty of the fanatic. Walmart screws the farmer with its Monopsony-power and uses that to undercut the small operater with its Monopoly power. It is ironic that those that profess to want life in a free society are nonethless happy to profit from the slavery of others. The sweat-shop worker and the endebted farmer are the victims of your so called freedom, never mind any loss of choice.

Fuck the weak, consume the poor, the world belongs to the powerful and freedom to the strong, this is the legend of the 'Libertarian', ally of the economic-slaver and the billionaire alike.

[BitterTea]

Said with the fixed-eyed certainty of the fanatic. Walmart screws the farmer with its Monopsony-power and uses that to undercut the small operater with its Monopoly power. It is ironic that those that profess to want life in a free society are nonethless happy to profit from the slavery of others. The sweat-shop worker and the endebted farmer are the victims of your so called freedom, never mind any loss of choice.

Fuck the weak, consume the poor, the Earth belongs to the Powerdful, this is the legend of the 'Libertarian'.

I love that you're afflicted with the same "fixed-eyed certainty of the fanatic" as those you criticize. Where would Walmart be without transportation costs subsidized by the government in the form of public roads and highways. It is because of statism, not in spite of it that large corporations flourish. Remember, the corporation itself is a government legal fiction.

Additionally, without a taxpayer subsidized police force, entities with large amounts of capital would have to pay the full costs of securing that capital. It would be expensive to be wealthy.

[benjamindees]

Walmart screws the farmer with its Monopsony-power and uses that to undercut the small operater with its Monopoly power.

However much I might be inclined to agree with you, WalMart clearly just exploits the differences between two of the largest and least competent governments on Earth, via the loophole of global free trade.  The Western farmer is 'screwed' because WalMart has opened a market of a billion consumers, while the Western retailer is screwed because WalMart can exploit those billion consumers as manufacturers.  But they can only do this because both governments have abrogated basic responsibilities and instead of preventing abuse and trade imbalance, sanction it.

[berlin]

Walmart screws the farmer with its Monopsony-power and uses that to undercut the small operater with its Monopoly power.

However much I might be inclined to agree with you, WalMart clearly just exploits the differences between two of the largest and least competent governments on Earth, via the loophole of global free trade.  The Western farmer is 'screwed' because WalMart has opened a market of a billion consumers, while the Western retailer is screwed because WalMart can exploit those billion consumers as manufacturers.  But they can only do this because both governments have abrogated basic responsibilities and instead of preventing abuse and trade imbalance, sanction it.

http://memecaptain.com/i?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanpolitics.com%2Freaganmakessillyface.gif&tt=&tb=Yeah+that%27s+right%2C+say+my+name+bitch%21

I agree with you, government must not abrogate its responsibilities as the Libertarians demand, and people should not abrogate their responsability to hold government accountable.

I think the governments job is indeed to provide public goods like transport infrastructure and law-enforcement, to uphold the social standards that decent people believe are above the market, healthcare and education? Hell yes. We demand the government we pay for makes itself useful to us and that these expenditures are not exploited by the selfish interests of would be Robber-Barons while we the people abandon ourselves to the delusions and fantasies of the Austrian School.

There is a higher principal than power and money.

Capitalism is an animal, a useful animal to be sure, and the human must be its rider, not its grateful slave. We do not allow these corporate creatures of private power to consume everything in site and shit everywhere, we put the leash on the animal of capitalism and we say you cannot go there, you cannot eat that. You stay in your enclosure and apply yourself within the bounds of marginal social benefit and if you threaten the interests of the community of people we whip your ass and keep you in your place and say "Stay in your hole, dog, our highways and legal systems are not for you to fuck us with".

Yes, make money, innovate, but our children and the children of developing nations and our economic freedoms and the ecosystems of our planet are not yours to consume.

[stillfire]

Capitalism is an animal, a useful animal to be sure, and the human is its rider. We do not allow these corporate creatures of private power to consume everything in site and shit everywhere, we put the leash on the animal of capitalism and we say you cannot go there, you cannot eat that.

Talking about capitalism like it's an animal is rationalisation. Capitalism is the true will of the people, much more so than the lobby lead government. The people vote every day with their wallets at Walmart. You disagree with the will of the majority but you don't want to see that reality, so you dress it up in colourful metaphors and cover your ears.

In your own metaphor, the animal is going exactly where people want it to. You're a poacher killing it against the will of the many.

I like choice but I also like democracy. Hence I don't use violence to force the cost of choice unto others, but instead I pay for it by buying innovative and better rather than cheaper at every turn.

[berlin]

Capitalism is an animal, a useful animal to be sure, and the human is its rider. We do not allow these corporate creatures of private power to consume everything in site and shit everywhere, we put the leash on the animal of capitalism and we say you cannot go there, you cannot eat that.

Talking about capitalism like it's an animal is rationalisation. Capitalism is the true will of the people, much more so than the lobby lead government. The people vote every day with their wallets at Walmart. You disagree with the will of the majority but you don't want to see that reality, so you dress it up in colourful metaphors and cover your ears.

In your own metaphor, the animal is going exactly where people want it to. You're a poacher killing it against the will of the many.

I like choice but I also like democracy. Hence I don't use violence to force the cost of choice unto others, but instead I pay for it by buying innovative and better rather than cheaper at every turn.

Wait a minute, I'm confused. You seem to be on my side then.

Maybe it's because I know that lobbies are funded by rich corporations and the like that bend the government to their will, and I am against this, whereas you think (unless I'm wrong) that the problem is that there is a government in the first place. Am I right?

[BitterTea]

Wait a minute, I'm confused. You seem to be on my side then.

Maybe it's because I know that lobbies are funded by rich corporations and the like that bend the government to their will, and I am against this, whereas you think (unless I'm wrong) that the problem is that there is a government in the first place. Am I right?

Without a government, there is nobody to lobby. Governments just grant privileges, tax, and use actual or threatened force against non-violent people. Every desirable function of government is better provided by private entities. That is my position.

[shady financier]

Government is merely a power-structure based on political energies.

Politics is a higher force than economics. If you don't understand that then you are lost, and cannot be helped.

[stillfire]

Wait a minute, I'm confused. You seem to be on my side then.

I don't know what your side is, but I'm against government intervention against perceived monopolies.

Maybe it's because I know that lobbies are funded by rich corporations and the like that bend the government to their will, and I am against this, whereas you think (unless I'm wrong) that the problem is that there is a government in the first place. Am I right?

I am very much opposed to lobbies bending the government. That's not democracy, it's plutocracy.

(This is a bit of an aside, but it might be fair to point out that while I'm arguing in this thread on the anarcho-capitalists' side, I am actually not an anarchist. I believe a small government is necessary and will unavoidably form in any power void. The best we can do is to make it the best possible government that represents the will of the many rather than the will of the strong.

I believe such a government is naturally libertarian with very few laws because a generally manipulative government is by definition not the will of the people. Nobody wishes to be manipulated. Also, power corrupts so size naturally begets corruption, which is undemocratic.)

It's easy to look at a market and say "you know that's wrong, I can fix that with a law." But the trap is in not asking what the costs of the intervention is. It's harder to visualise costs not yet materialised than it is to see what's immediate. Going back to the Walmart example: you want to forbid a new Walmart from opening up locally. Looks sensible, it'll "preserve competition" and jobs. But what are the costs? Decreased efficiency. People will have to pay more money for the same services and goods in your town than in other towns. Everyone only has to pay a little each, but it's death by a thousand cuts. In aggregate that's money which could have created more competition and jobs. But not just the same amount of competition and jobs: if the market got to decide where to allocate those funds it would do it in a more efficient manner leading to an overall increase in productivity and welfare.

How can any one person or group of politicians weigh these advantages and disadvantages, especially given the notoriously myopic outlook most people have on life? Then also throw in personal bias, bribes and the need for politicians to always look like they are working hard, and I don't see how there can be any doubt that every such intervention decision will actually be against the market and the will of the people as manifested through that market.

The more power government receives or takes, the greater the amount of corruption and the lesser the amount of democracy.

[stillfire]

Government is merely a power-structure based on political energies.

Politics is a higher force than economics. If you don't understand that then you are lost, and cannot be helped.

This is again talking in metaphors to avoid seeing that you're going against the will of the many. Politics is not a magical energy working for the greater good of mankind. Governments are small cliques of powerful people acting in their own best interest, which we all hope sometimes coincides with that of the people.

Again, if people agreed with your opinion in general, monopoly controls would be entirely useless since people would naturally strive to choose choice rather than cheap.

But they don't. You're the minority.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Government is merely a power-structure based on political energies.

Politics is a higher force than economics. If you don't understand that then you are lost, and cannot be helped.

This is again talking in metaphors to avoid seeing that you're going against the will of the many. Politics is not a magical energy working for the greater good of mankind. Governments are small cliques of powerful people acting in their own best interest, which we all hope sometimes coincides with that of the people.

Again, if people agreed with your opinion in general, monopoly controls would be entirely useless since people would naturally strive to choose choice rather than cheap.

But they don't. You're the minority.

Key thing to remember, G, is that anarcho-capitalists are opposed to institutionalized monopolies on power. 

[gene]

You might not like it but the reality is that people want Walmart. They will weather awful service for cheap prices.

If only that were all they had to endure. Cheap prices aren't the end of the story.

Some opponents get emotional about Walmart's size because they equate big with bad and a somehow unfair loss of choice, but the fact of the matter is that choice has a cost. And unfortunately, as a general rule, people don't want to pay for it.

If people were fully aware of the other costs... chances are they would think twice.

No amount of good intentions and emotion will change that you, the planned market advocate, want something other people do not want to pay for.

Are you sure they don't want to pay for it? Do they know all the associated costs? Or is that being hidden from them for some reason?

You might be successful in hiding the cost and forcing them to pay for it through government lobbying and subsequent laws, but you might want to ask yourself why force is required in the first place. If you were truly on the side of the majority, a TV ad for a more expensive competitor with greater choice would have sufficed.

I certainly don't advocate hiding anything from citizens. I would much rather openly discuss the negative effects of lobbying and other means by which corporations try to capture government. Even better, let's all discuss the appropriate role of corporations. Should they exist? If so, what kinds of powers should we let them have? Personally, I find advertisements distasteful and would much rather not use media designed for distortion and misinformation. Instead, it would likely be better to directly involve as many citizens as possible to experience these things firsthand. Ultimately, it is best to let a truly informed democracy (a redundancy, actually) function unhindered.

[shady financier]

Government is merely a power-structure based on political energies.

Politics is a higher force than economics. If you don't understand that then you are lost, and cannot be helped.

This is again talking in metaphors to avoid seeing that you're going against the will of the many. Politics is not a magical energy working for the greater good of mankind. Governments are small cliques of powerful people acting in their own best interest, which we all hope sometimes coincides with that of the people.

Again, if people agreed with your opinion in general, monopoly controls would be entirely useless since people would naturally strive to choose choice rather than cheap.

But they don't. You're the minority.

Small cliques of powerful people that recognize that human beings are not purely economical creatures. Yes it's true, sociopaths can be very good at figuring people, knowing how to play them beyond their wallets. If you think that all society needs is market dynamics then you don't even realize that there is a higher game. Kicking government is precisely that, railing against the existence of human dimensions whose needs supersede market structures.

People naturally choose cheap because they have limited funds, but most don't like that their funds are so limited in the first place because of lowering wages in the face of unleashed 'free market capitalism', or higher costs on employers to pay (in the US) health-insurance oligopolies should workers get sick, or being forced into the hands of the debt industry while working too hard to raise their children due to the perpetual fear of losing their insecure jobs. Left to market forces children themselves would still be crawling down mines or up chimneys or some other industry that can benefit from their dexterous little fingers, the clothing industry perhaps, because it's 'economical' and yields higher returns for the stockholder. Actually in many parts of the world children are still used this way.

All this "government! Boo-Hiss" rubbish is an irrelevant waste of time, it's the kind of question robotic people in cheap teevee sci-fi ask, "Why do humans cry? Why do humans laugh? Why do humans need families and friends? Why do humans have days off? surely it would be more efficient and productive if they did not have days off?"

Well humans have other needs expressed in political requirements over economic ones because humans are more than just walking packets of bio-capital waiting to be factored into some production process and optimized for profit maximizing output, people are also more than just consumers waiting to absorb said output. And super-successful enterprises can come to wield power that becomes inimical to the social wellbeing of human communities, so the political choice of conscious human beings is to curtail such massive aggregations of economic power. These are the political realities. There is simply more to life than money. If you ignore that the consequences can be as disastrous as the rise of the 3rd Reich, or of Stalin or Pol Pot and the like.

[grondilu]

I certainly don't advocate hiding anything from citizens. I would much rather openly discuss the negative effects of lobbying and other means by which corporations try to capture government. Even better, let's all discuss the appropriate role of corporations. Should they exist? If so, what kinds of powers should we let them have?

Sorry to intrude, but I've just red this amazing paragraph and I can't help noticing how ugly it sounds.

Corporations are nothing but a bunch of people working together in order to reach a common goal.   You don't question the existence of people.  You may judge their acts, but not their existence.   And corporations do nothing but selling stuffs to people who are willing to buy them.  They force no one to do so.

[shady financier]

I certainly don't advocate hiding anything from citizens. I would much rather openly discuss the negative effects of lobbying and other means by which corporations try to capture government. Even better, let's all discuss the appropriate role of corporations. Should they exist? If so, what kinds of powers should we let them have?

Sorry to intrude, but I've just red this amazing paragraph and I can't help noticing how ugly it sounds.

Corporations are nothing but a bunch of people working together in order to reach a common goal.   You don't question the existence of people.  You may judge their acts, but not their existence.   And corporations do nothing but selling stuffs to people who are willing to buy them.  They force no one to do so.

Wow. There are things about the world you are evidently yet to discover. Consider the legal status of the corporation.

[gene]

I certainly don't advocate hiding anything from citizens. I would much rather openly discuss the negative effects of lobbying and other means by which corporations try to capture government. Even better, let's all discuss the appropriate role of corporations. Should they exist? If so, what kinds of powers should we let them have?

Sorry to intrude, but I've just red this amazing paragraph and I can't help noticing how ugly it sounds.

Corporations are nothing but a bunch of people working together in order to reach a common goal.   You don't question the existence of people.  You may judge their acts, but not their existence.   And corporations do nothing but selling stuffs to people who are willing to buy them.  They force no one to do so.

From you, this is truly a compliment. This is precisely the type of response that reassures me that my moral compass is still functional. Thank you.

[stillfire]

Small cliques of powerful people that recognize that human beings are not purely economical creatures. Yes it's true, sociopaths can be very good at figuring people, knowing how to play them beyond their wallets. If you think that all society needs is market dynamics then you don't even realize that there is a higher game. Kicking government is precisely that, railing against the existence of human dimensions whose needs supersede market structures.

I never said all we need is market dynamics. I said our current form of government is immensely corruptible as it is composed of the same people you so vehemently describe in the following paragraphs. Democratic controls over them are much weaker than you wish to think, and the controls shrink the larger the government grows because it becomes an opaque machine no-one fully understands. For instance I cannot believe the majority desire is to start costly wars in other countries, nor condone torture, and I know there is not one person who actually knows all the laws on the books. Yet this is exactly the things the largest governments are producing.

Since I'm not an anarchist, and since it's off topic to the discussion about monopolies, I will leave it up to the anarcho-capitalists to argue their side on how to best further 'human dimensions' not catered for by market forces.

People naturally choose cheap because they have limited funds

Yes, and you are trying to force them to choose expensive instead because you 'know better'. That is not democratic.

Left to market forces children themselves would still be crawling down mines or up chimneys or some other industry that can benefit from their dexterous little fingers, the clothing industry perhaps, because it's 'economical' and yields higher returns for the stockholder. Actually in many parts of the world children are still used this way.

Meanwhile your ideology blows said children up with cluster bombs.

I said we should have few laws, not no laws. But I'm not an anarchist so others will have to bring the thread discussion on this subject on topic.

Well humans have other needs expressed in political requirements over economic ones
economic power. These are the political realities. There is simply more to life than money. If you ignore that the consequences can be as disastrous as the rise of the 3rd Reich, or of Stalin or Pol Pot and the like.

The political reality is that your belief in government is utopian. With reality as a guide, the larger and more controlling a government becomes, the more crimes it will commit against the very people it is said to represent.

A large government is fundamentally undemocratic because it is in its nature to be corrupt.

[Anonymous]

Government has never been proven to be a sustainable and optimal solution for the people, period. I'm not advocating any particular system but what we have had has never worked.

[grondilu]

Wow. There are things about the world you are evidently yet to discover. Consider the legal status of the corporation.

Ok.  My bad.  I totally forgot about this legal status thing, especially the limited liability part and stuffs like that.

I already had such a discussion with a so called left libertarian, and as a share holder myself, this gave me a freaking headache.

He claimed that modern capitalism is based on this limited liability legal thing, as share holders don't have to respond to what the company does, at least not beyond what they personnaly invested.  So to him the state protects shareholders from legal and moral responsbilities that could be engaged by the company.  Then left liberals use this as a reason/excuse to do other state-involved stuffs such as universal dividends and stuffs like that.

This personnaly gives me nausea.  Anyway, I just hope that at some point shareholdings will be truly anonymous (which is only possible with a truly anonymous currency), so that companies will not need the help of the state anymore in order to protect their shareholders.

[BitterTea]

Wow. There are things about the world you are evidently yet to discover. Consider the legal status of the corporation.

The depth of your ignorance astounds. Consider that the legal status of the corporation was granted by the government.

edit...

The anarcho-capitalist libertarian and Austrian economist Murray N. Rothbard, in his Power and Market (1970), attacked limited-liability laws, but argued it was possible similar arrangements may emerge in a free market, stating,

Finally, the question may be raised: Are corporations themselves mere grants of monopoly privilege? Some advocates of the free market were persuaded to accept this view by Walter Lippmann's The Good Society. It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations.

[shady financier]

Small cliques of powerful people that recognize that human beings are not purely economical creatures. Yes it's true, sociopaths can be very good at figuring people, knowing how to play them beyond their wallets. If you think that all society needs is market dynamics then you don't even realize that there is a higher game. Kicking government is precisely that, railing against the existence of human dimensions whose needs supersede market structures.

I never said all we need is market dynamics. I said our current form of government is immensely corruptible as it is composed of the same people you so vehemently describe in the following paragraphs. Democratic controls over them are much weaker than you wish to think, and the controls shrink the larger the government grows because it becomes an opaque machine no-one fully understands. For instance I cannot believe the majority desire is to start costly wars in other countries, nor condone torture, and I know there is not one person who actually knows all the laws on the books. Yet this is exactly the things the largest governments are producing.

Since I'm not an anarchist, and since it's off topic to the discussion about monopolies, I will leave it up to the anarcho-capitalists to argue their side on how to best further 'human dimensions' not catered for by market forces.

People naturally choose cheap because they have limited funds

Yes, and you are trying to force them to choose expensive instead because you 'know better'. That is not democratic.

Left to market forces children themselves would still be crawling down mines or up chimneys or some other industry that can benefit from their dexterous little fingers, the clothing industry perhaps, because it's 'economical' and yields higher returns for the stockholder. Actually in many parts of the world children are still used this way.

Meanwhile your ideology blows said children up with cluster bombs.

I said we should have few laws, not no laws. But I'm not an anarchist so others will have to bring the thread discussion on this subject on topic.

Well humans have other needs expressed in political requirements over economic ones
economic power. These are the political realities. There is simply more to life than money. If you ignore that the consequences can be as disastrous as the rise of the 3rd Reich, or of Stalin or Pol Pot and the like.

The political reality is that your belief in government is utopian. With reality as a guide, the larger and more controlling a government becomes, the more crimes it will commit against the very people it is said to represent.

A large government is fundamentally undemocratic because it is in its nature to be corrupt.

Now you're talking sense. This is a far more sensible discussion than "Gurn'mint bad, boo!", proper questions should be asked, what should be the limits of government, how should government be goverened, how should it be kept accountable, how should we balance the needs of the individual with those of the collective, what should be its mandate, its objectives and so on.

I don't know where you think you read me having utopian and unrealistic expectations of government let alone supporting the blowing-up of kids or anyone else with cluster bombs or any other weapon, but frankly that is a thread for grown up debate elsewhere. Personally I can see the logic of the idea of limited government, but in practice I believe limited government tends to have government not do some of the things where I think it's role is most meaningful and important. If it were possible to have such a thing as a Social-Minarchy, then that would be my choice, but I'm doubtful that such a thing is possible. I beleive bitcoin can be one less thing for government to have to manage and risk getting wrong, as I beleive with bitcoin the money supply could always automatically match the needs of the economy, it's a whole new technology and implies whole new ways of doing things that might make this possible. There's a long way to go yet though, and frankly I think bitcoin need not replace fiat money any time soon. Makes a good additional choice of money that's for sure.

I do agree however that government bloat is bad. As with many questions in life it is a matter of balance and judgment, not sweeping formulas and theories thought up by bearded old men long ago, or shady think-tanks backed by billionaires or the mad ravings of bigoted astro-turf loud-mouths. We should step up and address the matter on an ongoing basis, not throw the baby out with the bath-water and simply write off the whole requirement for any government at all as being equal to the worst excesses and the worst implementations of the concept.

The expanding bureaucracy is constantly expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

This is a bad tendency, but it is not specific to government, as has already been pointed out in the thread several times, this is a tendency of large private organizations as well. It is a managerial, structural question.

[shady financier]

Government has never been proven to be a sustainable and optimal solution for the people, period. I'm not advocating any particular system but what we have had has never worked.

Yes, human beings and their activities continue to be flawed, limited and corruptible. We should replace the buggers with sleek gray machines.

[shady financier]

Wow. There are things about the world you are evidently yet to discover. Consider the legal status of the corporation.

Ok.  My bad.  I totally forgot about this legal status thing, especially the limited liability part and stuffs like that.

I already had such a discussion with a so called left libertarian, and as a share holder myself, this gave me a freaking headache.

He claimed that modern capitalism is based on this limited liability legal thing, as share holders don't have to respond to what the company does, at least not beyond what they personnaly invested.  So to him the state protects shareholders from legal and moral responsbilities that could be engaged by the company.  Then left liberals use this as a reason/excuse to do other state-involved stuffs such as universal dividends and stuffs like that.

This personnaly gives me nausea.  Anyway, I just hope that at some point shareholdings will be truly anonymous (which is only possible with a truly anonymous currency), so that companies will not need the help of the state anymore in order to protect their shareholders.

christ.

[shady financier]

Wow. There are things about the world you are evidently yet to discover. Consider the legal status of the corporation.

The depth of your ignorance astounds. Consider that the legal status of the corporation was granted by the government.

edit...

The anarcho-capitalist libertarian and Austrian economist Murray N. Rothbard, in his Power and Market (1970), attacked limited-liability laws, but argued it was possible similar arrangements may emerge in a free market, stating,

Finally, the question may be raised: Are corporations themselves mere grants of monopoly privilege? Some advocates of the free market were persuaded to accept this view by Walter Lippmann's The Good Society. It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations.

Indeed, under the influence of lobbyists and other agents no doubt in the pay of.... private capital.

Actually it can be argued that the rise of the Corporation marks the shift in capitalism from the power of the Owners of capital to the power of Managers of capital. A struggle between aristocrats as far as most people are concerned. Furthermore the will of shareholders is now minimal and fleeting, and analogous to the role of voters in a super-state democracy, less than that in most cases, share-holders are mere motes of hot-money shifting from place to place, un-aware, irresponsable, un-empowered.

We are all, in the West, shareholders now (well anyone with a pension or a savings account anyway). This status really isn't worth much more than sweaty greasy wads of cash at best.

Stake-holder capitalism for the win. The owner, the worker, the customer, the neighbor, the supplier, etcetera etcetera. In fact I contend that we need to know eachother more. That or become mutually alienated fodder for the likes of Goldman fucking Sachs.

[mouser98]

The depth of your ignorance astounds. 

Only surpassed by his arrogance.

[Basiley]

Government has never been proven to be a sustainable and optimal solution for the people, period. I'm not advocating any particular system but what we have had has never worked.

sure, because its friggin aliens invention[space arachnids/reptilians/medusae ] to enslave/exploit/destroy Humanity and rest part of Earth ecosphere.

[da2ce7]

It is always interesting to read the 'left' regularly use comments like: "You are yet to be inspired".

I'm personalty a mix of voluntarism (external moral structure, e.g. on what basis I judge others) and objectivism (internal moral structure, e.g. how I judge myself).

[mouser98]

Government has never been proven to be a sustainable and optimal solution for the people, period. I'm not advocating any particular system but what we have had has never worked.

sure, because its friggin aliens invention[space arachnids/reptilians/medusae ] to enslave/exploit/destroy Humanity and rest part of Earth ecosphere.

you don't need aliens or reptiles.  all you need is to understand that humans exploit resources, and then ask yourself, what is the greatest resource on the planet?

[Basiley]

Government has never been proven to be a sustainable and optimal solution for the people, period. I'm not advocating any particular system but what we have had has never worked.

sure, because its friggin aliens invention[space arachnids/reptilians/medusae ] to enslave/exploit/destroy Humanity and rest part of Earth ecosphere.

you don't need aliens or reptiles.  all you need is to understand that humans exploit resources, and then ask yourself, what is the greatest resource on the planet?

greatest resource ?
BitCoins ?

p.s.
last ages humanity state is artificial, so judging this way, lead to ignoring root of problem as well as humanity/earth potential.

[mouser98]

Government has never been proven to be a sustainable and optimal solution for the people, period. I'm not advocating any particular system but what we have had has never worked.

sure, because its friggin aliens invention[space arachnids/reptilians/medusae ] to enslave/exploit/destroy Humanity and rest part of Earth ecosphere.

you don't need aliens or reptiles.  all you need is to understand that humans exploit resources, and then ask yourself, what is the greatest resource on the planet?

greatest resource ?
BitCoins ?

p.s.
last ages humanity state is artificial, so judging this way, lead to ignoring root of problem as well as humanity/earth potential.

well, you lost me there, but the most valuable resource on the planet is not bitcoins.

[Basiley]

"not BitCoins, yet", you mean ?
imagine next day huge flying saucers landed before WH DC and aliens start demanding thru loadspeakers "surrender your bitcoins, poor creatures of will be destroyed !!" (c)

[John Kirk]

imagine next day huge flying saucers landed before WH DC and aliens start demanding thru loadspeakers "surrender your bitcoins, poor creatures of will be destroyed !!" (c)

I would take one look at the mothership and start drooling.

Then, I would steal one of their shuttles, and, as nonchalantly as possible fly it up to the mothership and dock.  Then, I would tie my laptop into the shuttle's I/O port, hack into the mothership's mainframe, upload the bitcoin miner, and point its output to my own wallet address.  Finally, in my best Mr. Spock voice I would say, "Computer: This is a Class 'A' Priority directive.  Compute to the last bitcoin the value of 21 million."

At that point, I would high-tail it out of there, as the bitcoin client takes over bank after bank of the mothership's mainframe, vomiting bitcoins at my wallet, forcing the mothership to lose all control and plummet into the Pacific.

Then I would dare all those whiners and nay-sayers to claim I didn't earn my bitcoins.

[carlerha]

How would Anarcho-capitalists handle the emergence of monopolies?

I think this original question makes no sense. Anarchism is all about not "handling" stuff with a top-down approach, as is contiunously proven, with the existense of states since the dawn of the statist era, not to work very well, and on top of it, being astoundingly immoral. The possibility of "emergence of monopolies" implies that consumers have no power over their economic choices whatsoever, which is a contradiction in light of a stateless society.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Government has never been proven to be a sustainable and optimal solution for the people, period. I'm not advocating any particular system but what we have had has never worked.

sure, because its friggin aliens invention[space arachnids/reptilians/medusae ] to enslave/exploit/destroy Humanity and rest part of Earth ecosphere.

you don't need aliens or reptiles.  all you need is to understand that humans exploit resources, and then ask yourself, what is the greatest resource on the planet?

The greatest resource is other humans.  Not for eating, but for soft-core enslavement via taxes.

[shady financier]

Government has never been proven to be a sustainable and optimal solution for the people, period. I'm not advocating any particular system but what we have had has never worked.

sure, because its friggin aliens invention[space arachnids/reptilians/medusae ] to enslave/exploit/destroy Humanity and rest part of Earth ecosphere.

you don't need aliens or reptiles.  all you need is to understand that humans exploit resources, and then ask yourself, what is the greatest resource on the planet?

The greatest resource is other humans.  Not for eating, but for soft-core enslavement via taxes.

...or 'competative' wages, prices or standards levied by an emergent monopolistic/monopsonistc monster unfettered by any form of politcal decision because wallet-voting is naively assumed by useful idiots to be enough for the common man and woman to get by in the complex muli-tiered web of assosiations that make up modern society.

[BitterTea]

Did you just say that competition == monopoly? Quite the doublespeak.

Assuming that you don't ACTUALLY think that, why is competition desirable in all realms other than law? Why is monopoly bad except for in law? Think about it, that is the defining aspect of the state. Why should the state force you to pay for its services when we do not accept that of any business?

[shady financier]

Did you just say that competition == monopoly? Quite the doublespeak.

Assuming that you don't ACTUALLY think that, why is competition desirable in all realms other than law? Why is monopoly bad except for in law? Think about it, that is the defining aspect of the state. Why should the state force you to pay for its services when we do not accept that of any business?

No. competition leads eventually to the winner, once all other competitors have been crushed, the winner takes it all. Long ago people realized that this kind of world sucks, the private states of kings have since been revolutionized away, or their powers reduced or externalized or sidelined from political relevance. Well, except in parts of the Middle East etc.

Law (and human rights for that matter) is not a game for competition. We have democracies and republics because Law is more than a matter of buying shit. When was the last time Apple asked for your vote? They don't need to, if you like what they are selling you buy it if not you dont, and that's fine as far as it goes. Society itself however is more than a market place. The inequalities that competition by nature produce can cause serious instability in society, addressing such instabilities is a matter for the political processes and political power structures, not commercial ones.

[mouser98]

No. competition leads eventually to the winner, once all other competitors have been crushed, the winner takes it all.

would you further enlighten us as to how this process actually works?  given that the reality we observe is the exact opposite?

[shady financier]

No. competition leads eventually to the winner, once all other competitors have been crushed, the winner takes it all.

would you further enlighten us as to how this process actually works?  given that the reality we observe is the exact opposite?

Tell you what, that can be your assignment. See if you can find out what strange mysterious force might be preventing monopolies from forming in the reality we know today and report back here.

[em3rgentOrdr]

No. competition leads eventually to the winner, once all other competitors have been crushed, the winner takes it all.

would you further enlighten us as to how this process actually works?  given that the reality we observe is the exact opposite?

Tell you what, that can be your assignment. See if you can find out what strange mysterious force might be preventing monopolies from forming in the reality we know today, as opposed to what happened back in the Gilded Age.

Write-up a report or something and present to the class.

You a wrong G.  Competition doesn't necesarilly lead to one monopoly winner.  As long as there are no government enforced barriers to entry.  Just look at all the fact that there are multiple companies for each industry currently. 

Keep in mind that voluntary exchange is not a negative sum game, unlike war/violence/politics.  So while it may hold true that a warlord may kill all his opposition and declare himself emperor, this ks not the case with voluntary exchange.

[mouser98]

No. competition leads eventually to the winner, once all other competitors have been crushed, the winner takes it all.

would you further enlighten us as to how this process actually works?  given that the reality we observe is the exact opposite?

Tell you what, that can be your assignment. See if you can find out what strange mysterious force might be preventing monopolies from forming in the reality we know today, as opposed to what happened back in the Gilded Age.

Write-up a report or something and present to the class.

sorry, the onus is on you.  i am not the one making idiotic assertions.  now, i ask again, explain to us how competition leads to monopoly.

[shady financier]

No. competition leads eventually to the winner, once all other competitors have been crushed, the winner takes it all.

would you further enlighten us as to how this process actually works?  given that the reality we observe is the exact opposite?

Tell you what, that can be your assignment. See if you can find out what strange mysterious force might be preventing monopolies from forming in the reality we know today, as opposed to what happened back in the Gilded Age.

Write-up a report or something and present to the class.

You a wrong G.  Competition doesn't necesarilly lead to one monopoly winner.  As long as there are no government enforced barriers to entry.  Just look at all the fact that there are multiple companies for each industry currently.  

Keep in mind that voluntary exchange is not a negative sum game, unlike war/violence/politics.  So while it may hold true that a warlord may kill all his opposition and declare himself emperor, this ks not the case with voluntary exchange.

Competition's great for innovation and choice, but at heart capitalism abhors competition because it is not as profitable as collusion or total market conquest. Keeping a market on it's toes can produce many benefits but if left to a market without rules the sensible capitalist would price-out as many competitors as possible and come to some sort of understanding or game with those that remain. Competition doesn't always lead to monopolies, sometimes it leads to oligopolies or cartels.

A good capitalist cannot be blamed for maximizing profit and seeking to not only beat the competition, but to eliminate competition altogether. A good capitalist is looking to make as much profit as possible, not uphold some sort of deluded principal about competition for its own sake being a virtue. I believe competition is a good thing but a capitalist is deluded if s/he thinks that's what they're supposed to focus on every day when they turn up to work. There is after all such a thing as fiduciary responsibility. If you like competition and believe it's good then you've no business being on the board of directors of some firm somewhere. Well you can be an director and like competition but only in your spare time, at work- your job is to see competition as the enemy.

If you were the director of a company in which I had considerable interests and you did not intend to wipe out the competition and maximize profits, frankly I would want you replaced. You do not turn up to a street brawl with a giant inflatable hammer. Business is not some sort of gentleman's game, at least not if you're taking it seriously.

To preserve the benefits of competition we do not allow capitalists to have everything their own way. We have laws designed to try and keep markets in their most competitive, innovative and choice giving state (just ask Microsoft) and capitalists work within these bounds at making the profits and taking no prisoners. They don't need to have their jobs confused by having to work toward two mutually conflicting ends. When they lobby against various regulations they are doing so to maximize their profits, not because

[fairy voice]competition is great, yaay![/fairy voice].

It's their job, and thank fuck somebody actually knows what they're trying to do here.

This is just one of the various necessary roles that government plays above the market. To fail to grasp these facts of life is... almost child-like.

[shady financier]

No. competition leads eventually to the winner, once all other competitors have been crushed, the winner takes it all.

would you further enlighten us as to how this process actually works?  given that the reality we observe is the exact opposite?

Tell you what, that can be your assignment. See if you can find out what strange mysterious force might be preventing monopolies from forming in the reality we know today, as opposed to what happened back in the Gilded Age.

Write-up a report or something and present to the class.

sorry, the onus is on you.  i am not the one making idiotic assertions.  now, i ask again, explain to us how competition leads to monopoly.

D minus. Leaves a lot to be desired.

[mouser98]

okay I get it G, sorry for having been so "childlike."  i can monopolize my market by pricing out most of my competitors and coming to some arrangement with the few that are left, and then we can raise our prices (and profits) through the ceiling because i never have to worry about competition from a new player or from a rebel in my cartel.  i didn't realize it was that simple.

[shady financier]

okay I get it G, sorry for having been so "childlike."  i can monopolize my market by pricing out most of my competitors and coming to some arrangement with the few that are left, and then we can raise our prices (and profits) through the ceiling because i never have to worry about competition from a new player or from a rebel in my cartel.  i didn't realize it was that simple.

That's not how monopolies work, they tend not to be run by complete idiots. They raise their prices alright, but not so high as to beg some cocky upstart new-comer to slit their throats.

[BitterTea]

That's not how monopolies work, they tend not to be run by complete idiots. They raise their prices alright, but not so high as to beg some cocky upstart new-comer to slit their throats.

Any price above what the market will bear leaves room for competition. If they are a monopoly and they price their goods or services exactly at market prices, what's the problem?

[Anonymous]

That's not how monopolies work, they tend not to be run by complete idiots. They raise their prices alright, but not so high as to beg some cocky upstart new-comer to slit their throats.

Any price above what the market will bear leaves room for competition. If they are a monopoly and they price their goods or services exactly at market prices, what's the problem?

The owners have a bigger house and more wealth than most people. It just isn't fair.

[DrSammyD]

That's not how monopolies work, they tend not to be run by complete idiots. They raise their prices alright, but not so high as to beg some cocky upstart new-comer to slit their throats.

Any price above what the market will bear leaves room for competition. If they are a monopoly and they price their goods or services exactly at market prices, what's the problem?

I can't believe he admitted that! Completely undercuts his case.

[grondilu]

That's not how monopolies work, they tend not to be run by complete idiots. They raise their prices alright, but not so high as to beg some cocky upstart new-comer to slit their throats.

Any price above what the market will bear leaves room for competition. If they are a monopoly and they price their goods or services exactly at market prices, what's the problem?

I can't believe he admitted that! Completely undercuts his case.

Is it me or this debate is going through an endless loop?

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=6775.msg99364#msg99364

Personally I don't understand what's this concern of yours about monopolies.  If a monopoly is not enforced per violence, who cares?   A monopoly is fine if it emerges from market forces, and market forces only.  It just satisfies demand better.  Somehow, it is nothing but an extreme version of the labour specialization concept.

Now, say a company uses its cash to dump its prices below production costs, in order to crush competition.  So basically it's just like this company was offering some stuffs to people.  How can that be a bad thing?  If you think it's not fair for the competition, you are just wrong.  The other companies can just stop producing/selling.

Say I build a product with some producing cost.  If an other company starts selling the same product below this production cost, what's even the point of producing for me, now?  Hell, I could as well just buy the other company's production!

Being capable of stopping production should be important for a company.  Otherwise it's just silly.  Free market just makes this clearer.

[JA37]

Personally I don't understand what's this concern of yours about monopolies.  If a monopoly is not enforced per violence, who cares?   A monopoly is fine if it emerges from market forces, and market forces only.  It just satisfies demand better.  Somehow, it is nothing but an extreme version of the labour specialization concept.

Now, say a company uses its cash to dump its prices below production costs, in order to crush competition.  So basically it's just like this company was offering some stuffs to people.  How can that be a bad thing?  If you think it's not fair for the competition, you are just wrong.  The other companies can just stop producing/selling.

Say I build a product with some producing cost.  If an other company starts selling the same product below this production cost, what's even the point of producing for me, now?  Hell, I could as well just buy the other company's production!

Being capable of stopping production should be important for a company.  Otherwise it's just silly.  Free market just makes this clearer.

Company A serves many markets, they make a lot of money. I figure out how to undercut them in one market, by using new technology and bringing something new to the table. I borrow money at an interest, build up a production line and start marketing my new product. I save enough money to keep everything going for 6 months while sales pick up. Company A sees this, realizes that they can't compete with my product. They then use profits from another market to lower the price of their product, until I go out of business. With no competition, the price goes back up to where they make money again.
I'm screwed. I owe a lot of money to my investors. The consumer is screwed, they didn't see any innovation in the market. How is this a good thing?
The next person who wants to innovate in this market will have a hard time finding investors I think.

Saying that I should stop producing until prices go up again is ignoring reality. I have wages to pay, interest on my loan, rent for machine and property....
I'm assuming here that the product is something non-trivial. Something that goes beyond a lemon stand outside your parents house.

[mouser98]

Personally I don't understand what's this concern of yours about monopolies.  If a monopoly is not enforced per violence, who cares?   A monopoly is fine if it emerges from market forces, and market forces only.  It just satisfies demand better.  Somehow, it is nothing but an extreme version of the labour specialization concept.

Now, say a company uses its cash to dump its prices below production costs, in order to crush competition.  So basically it's just like this company was offering some stuffs to people.  How can that be a bad thing?  If you think it's not fair for the competition, you are just wrong.  The other companies can just stop producing/selling.

Say I build a product with some producing cost.  If an other company starts selling the same product below this production cost, what's even the point of producing for me, now?  Hell, I could as well just buy the other company's production!

Being capable of stopping production should be important for a company.  Otherwise it's just silly.  Free market just makes this clearer.

Company A serves many markets, they make a lot of money. I figure out how to undercut them in one market, by using new technology and bringing something new to the table. I borrow money at an interest, build up a production line and start marketing my new product. I save enough money to keep everything going for 6 months while sales pick up. Company A sees this, realizes that they can't compete with my product. They then use profits from another market to lower the price of their product, until I go out of business. With no competition, the price goes back up to where they make money again.
I'm screwed. I owe a lot of money to my investors. The consumer is screwed, they didn't see any innovation in the market. How is this a good thing?
The next person who wants to innovate in this market will have a hard time finding investors I think.

Saying that I should stop producing until prices go up again is ignoring reality. I have wages to pay, interest on my loan, rent for machine and property....
I'm assuming here that the product is something non-trivial. Something that goes beyond a lemon stand outside your parents house.

that is a thought-provoking scenario, and not an unrealistic one, but the bottom line is that you were under-capitalized.  if your product was sound, your business plan sound, your management team sound, and you were that far into it, why couldn't you attract more capital to weather company A's attack?  company A has to give in sooner or later, they can't keep this up forever, you just have to have enough capital to outlast them.  if you don't, don't blame the free market.

[grondilu]

This is nothing but an other version of "they took our job" whining.   It's annoying as hell.



I don't give a crap about the reasons why someone suddenly starts to sell things at a ridiculously low price.  It is a given and it is outrageous to complain about that.  Competitive companies should just stop production, buy the competitive product if necessary, sack employees and stuffs like that until prices go higher again, if they do.   And if they have to shut down, be it.  This is the only thing that makes sense in a free market.

[JA37]

that is a thought-provoking scenario, and not an unrealistic one, but the bottom line is that you were under-capitalized.  if your product was sound, your business plan sound, your management team sound, and you were that far into it, why couldn't you attract more capital to weather company A's attack?  company A has to give in sooner or later, they can't keep this up forever, you just have to have enough capital to outlast them.  if you don't, don't blame the free market.

Most new businesses are under capitalized. It's a big risk starting up something new and attracting capital is hard. Most new companies fail during their first year, I hear a number around 80% but you can probably google that.
Why would Company A have to give in sooner or later? Unless they were competing with someone of equal size they don't have to give in at all. They use their profits to kill me off, I use borrowed money to try to stay alive. Guess which one is more sustainable.

I like the free market. I want it to remain free.

[JA37]

 Competitive companies should just stop production, buy the competitive product if necessary, sack employees and stuffs like that until prices go higher again, if they do.   And if they have to shut down, be it.  This is the only thing that makes sense in a free market.

You're ignoring reality to have it fit your theory.
I think competition is a good thing and would like companies to compete on equal terms. That's what a free market is to me. What's your definition?
It seems that your way of thinking would lead to oligolipolys and less competition.

[BitterTea]

 Competitive companies should just stop production, buy the competitive product if necessary, sack employees and stuffs like that until prices go higher again, if they do.   And if they have to shut down, be it.  This is the only thing that makes sense in a free market.

You're ignoring reality to have it fit your theory.
I think competition is a good thing and would like companies to compete on equal terms. That's what a free market is to me. What's your definition?
It seems that your way of thinking would lead to oligolipolys and less competition.

I would like to respond to you but first I must understand what you mean by "compete on equal terms", and what methods you propose to enforce this equality.

[markm]

I keep coming back to thinking about the transition time between when a Lord would say hey I want you to run my feasting-hall, and put up the materials and labour and so on to build the hall, had his huntsmen and gardeners and fishermen bring in foodstuffs for the feasts and so on...

...And a time when the Lord came up with the brilliant gambit of instead announcing to a large number of wannabe feasting-hall-managers "hey you know what, me and my rich buddies would love to be able to frequent a nice feasting-hall such as any of you fine people could surely manage if only someone would loan you the capital to build it and get it up and running. How about you each borrow enough capital, at interest of course, then me and my rich buddies will maybe actually frequent one of your halls and the rest can be sold into indentured servitude for failure to pay your debts? Heck come to think of it why frequent any one of you? If we can breed a constant stream of suckers er I mean brilliant chefs such as yourselves, we can pick and choose day to day whether to visit any of you and if so which one, and let you all go down the tubes as soon as we have our capital back plus some profit. heck the amusement of the whole setup is itself almost a profit it is such an entertaining notion..."

-MarkM-

[JA37]

I would like to respond to you but first I must understand what you mean by "compete on equal terms", and what methods you propose to enforce this equality.

Nothing of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices

And laws and regulations, enforced by the state. Fees mostly.

[grondilu]

I would like to respond to you but first I must understand what you mean by "compete on equal terms", and what methods you propose to enforce this equality.

Nothing of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices

I have nothing against any of these practices.

Example:  so called price fixing:

« where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market. »

There is nothing against free market in companies "colluding" to set prices.  They basically come to a agreement about their prices, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they don't use force to prevent other people to sell at a lower price.

There is a nice video of Walter Block I think, where he mocks that by comparing it to a joke about three guys in a russian prison.

The first guy is asked why he is here and he answered:

-  it's because I had an appointment and I arrived too late.

The second guy said:

- I didn't want to be late so I was there much earlier but they said it wasn't good too.

Then the third guy said:

- I arrived at the exact time and they said I had some secret arrangement to collude with the others in order to be there at the exact time, so it wasn't good either.

Price regulation rules are just as ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

In the end, you are just dictating what people can and cannot do with their property and cripple man's ability to sustain. It is absolutely immoral.

[zef]

I would just like to say that i really support grondilu's arguments. Many believe we need competition for the sake of competition, and therefore many things that would presume to lower competition should be corrected, ie monopoly, or collusion, etc. People don't seem to understand the distinction between a monopoly attained by force and one attained by providing the best service or product, which is a BIG distinction.  

[compro01]

People don't seem to understand the distinction between a monopoly attained by force and one attained by providing the best service or product, which is a BIG distinction.  

and your belief that the holder of a monopoly obtained by providing the best service or product will not resort to force when threatened by a competitor providing a better product or service, and thereby eliminating your distinction, is based on what exactly?

[Anonymous]

Force is expensive. Besides, the companies should be prepared to defend themselves against force. It should be in their budgets.

When you are competing with a monopoly on force with endless government-funding, it's a different story.

Natural force tends to have very mild effects that can be tackled by the common people.

[compro01]

Force is expensive. Besides, the companies should be prepared to defend themselves against force. It should be in their budgets.

When you are competing with a monopoly on force with endless government-funding, it's a different story.

Natural force tends to have very mild effects that can be tackled by the common people.

1. defending against force is frequently more expensive.

2. and anyone building a building should budget against a competitor sending a guy with a wrecking ball.  obtaining sufficient capital to defend against force from an established competitor in a market with non-negligible entry costs is very unlikely to be possible.

[Anonymous]

Force is expensive. Besides, the companies should be prepared to defend themselves against force. It should be in their budgets.

When you are competing with a monopoly on force with endless government-funding, it's a different story.

Natural force tends to have very mild effects that can be tackled by the common people.

1. defending against force is frequently more expensive.

2. and anyone building a building should budget against a competitor sending a guy with a wrecking ball.  obtaining sufficient capital to defend against force from an established competitor in a market with non-negligible entry costs is very unlikely to be possible.

1. Welcome to life.

2. It's called insurance.

Anyways, if this proves to unsustainable I can only imagine how horribly doomed totally governed systems are.

[zef]

People don't seem to understand the distinction between a monopoly attained by force and one attained by providing the best service or product, which is a BIG distinction.  

and your belief that the holder of a monopoly obtained by providing the best service or product will not resort to force when threatened by a competitor providing a better product or service, and thereby eliminating your distinction, is based on what exactly?

I stated no such belief, but i was pointing out that there is a distinction between the two.  I don't think its reasonable to assume that every monopoly obtained legitimately through providing superior services will devolve into force or violence when challenged by competition.

[grondilu]

People don't seem to understand the distinction between a monopoly attained by force and one attained by providing the best service or product, which is a BIG distinction.  

and your belief that the holder of a monopoly obtained by providing the best service or product will not resort to force when threatened by a competitor providing a better product or service, and thereby eliminating your distinction, is based on what exactly?

it is based on the fact that people have to be judged for they actually do, not for what you think they might do in some particular circumstances.

[JA37]

2. It's called insurance.

Yes, the state insures us against anticompetitive behaviour from market leaders. Good point.
But I have a feeling that's not what you meant, in which case you were just making a dim-witted point trying very hard not to understand what the OP was saying.

[DrSammyD]

2. It's called insurance.

Yes, the state insures us against anticompetitive behaviour from market leaders. Good point.
But I have a feeling that's not what you meant, in which case you were just making a dim-witted point trying very hard not to understand what the OP was saying.

And you assume no other insurer could be more efficient, or in fact even possible.

[BitterTea]

Who insures us against anticompetitive and antisocial behavior from the state?!

[Anonymous]

2. It's called insurance.

Yes, the state insures us against anticompetitive behaviour from market leaders. Good point.
But I have a feeling that's not what you meant, in which case you were just making a dim-witted point trying very hard not to understand what the OP was saying.

We don't need the state to insure it. Private companies can do it much better.

[Anonymous]

Who insures us against anticompetitive and antisocial behavior from the state?!

+1

[stillfire]

1. defending against force is frequently more expensive.

2. and anyone building a building should budget against a competitor sending a guy with a wrecking ball.  obtaining sufficient capital to defend against force from an established competitor in a market with non-negligible entry costs is very unlikely to be possible.

Your proposal to avoid defending against force is to create a law. But a law is merely force we all pay for. So your idea comes down to making others pay for the force required to defend your private, for profit venture.

Which brings us back to the question of whether you have some kind of right to create competition, so that the rest of us are morally obliged to assist you in making money.

And I say we are not. The market does not owe you the right to be successful in creating a copycat project selling a product no better than the status quo at a higher price.

If you want to compete against a company, either be better, more innovative or cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Imagine a No Business Left Behind type of legislation. lol

[grondilu]

1. defending against force is frequently more expensive.

2. and anyone building a building should budget against a competitor sending a guy with a wrecking ball.  obtaining sufficient capital to defend against force from an established competitor in a market with non-negligible entry costs is very unlikely to be possible.

Your proposal to avoid defending against force is to create a law. But a law is merely force we all pay for. So your idea comes down to making others pay for the force required to defend your private, for profit venture.

Exactly.  Using force to defend property is expensive for sure.   But having the State do it, doesn't make it free.  It just makes everybody pay for everyone.   It's certainly not moral, and probably not even efficient.

[JA37]

We don't need the state to insure it. Private companies can do it much better.

Please find me a private insurance company with the resources and right to enter and search other companies that engage in anti-competative behaviour. Those who do such things will not cooperate with anyone investigating them.
Feel free to expand on how you think this should work.

Or should the insurance be of the kind that I just claim to have been wronged to receive money? Or the other way around, where I can be wronged to death but nothing can ever be proved and I will never get an insurance payout.

[JA37]

Who insures us against anticompetitive and antisocial behavior from the state?!

Voting.

[Anonymous]

There's no such thing as anti-competitive behavior in a free market.

[Anonymous]

Who insures us against anticompetitive and antisocial behavior from the state?!

Voting.

lol no

That only assures 50% +1 gets their whims and desires heard. ...and the other 49% can get fucked in the ass.

[DrSammyD]

There's no such thing as anti-competitive behavior in a free market.

Atlas, want to make a bet that he supports "anti-competitive behavior" of workers (unions)?

[JA37]

There's no such thing as anti-competitive behavior in a free market.

Then why do you see it every now and then in the news? Oligopolys were formed by market leaders to push up prices . This happens both in very diverse markets, both free and not so free. One example that comes to mind was a paving oligopoly that was broken up not so long ago. Would you say that paving is something that is protected by the state and that no free market exist there?

I'm sure you would. As long as there's a state somewhere in the world it can be blamed for everything by anarchists. It seems.

[gene]

Who insures us against anticompetitive and antisocial behavior from the state?!

Voting.

lol no

That only assures 50% +1 gets their whims and desires heard. ...and the other 49% can get fucked in the ass.

<infantile cartoon>

If you think that your fellow human beings are "sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pit bulls for fun," then you have some serious problems. And I'm not joking.

[BitterTea]

There's no such thing as anti-competitive behavior in a free market.

Then why do you see it every now and then in the news? Oligopolys were formed by market leaders to push up prices . This happens both in very diverse markets, both free and not so free. One example that comes to mind was a paving oligopoly that was broken up not so long ago. Would you say that paving is something that is protected by the state and that no free market exist there?

I'm sure you would. As long as there's a state somewhere in the world it can be blamed for everything by anarchists. It seems.

Perhaps because almost all markets are regulated by the state?

I feel like a broken record here, but there is no such thing as a corporation without the the implicit and explicit grant of privilege by states.

[BitterTea]

If you think that your fellow human beings are "sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pit bulls for fun," then you have some serious problems. And I'm not joking.

Do you assume that most people are good? Then why do we need states?

Do you assume that most people are bad? Then how can you dare put some in a position of power?

[JA37]

lol no
That only assures 50% +1 gets their whims and desires heard. ...and the other 49% can get fucked in the ass.

Good thing most people follows the "Do unto others..." motto. And that kind of voting doesn't really exist, does it? There are systems to prevent it everywhere.
Also, a very dark way of looking at people. What about the "informed self interest" that was so popular here not too long ago? Being "fucked in the ass" isn't really in most peoples self interest so your graphic and dark comic is entertaining at best, misleading at worst.

And it's too late for me to do this right now. I'm off.

[BitterTea]

lol no
That only assures 50% +1 gets their whims and desires heard. ...and the other 49% can get fucked in the ass.

Good thing most people follows the "Do unto others..." motto.

Great! Then we agree that states are not necessary!

[stillfire]

Good thing most people follows the "Do unto others..." motto.

As I have stated before in this thread, you can't claim democracy to be on your side. If the majority did not like your pavement company and their monopoly - and I apologise because I don't know the actual details on that story - then they could easily prevent it through buying their pavement elsewhere. They choose not to, and chances are a larger number of people made that choice than the few politicians who ruled against them.

People voted against your vision of the perfect society and you overrode the majority through flaws in the democratic process. Chances are you own a pavement company of your own and had a bigger lobbying budget. That's not democracy. The people are not with you. You are the minority, the squeaky wheel, the back room manipulator, the cancer man.

[MoonShadow]

There is no such thing as a democratic state anywhere on Earth.  Democracy doesn't work on any scale larger than a church business meeting.  All these "democracies" are representative republics of some kind.  This is not remotely the same thing.

[Anonymous]

There's no such thing as anti-competitive behavior in a free market.

Then why do you see it every now and then in the news? Oligopolys were formed by market leaders to push up prices . This happens both in very diverse markets, both free and not so free. One example that comes to mind was a paving oligopoly that was broken up not so long ago. Would you say that paving is something that is protected by the state and that no free market exist there?

I'm sure you would. As long as there's a state somewhere in the world it can be blamed for everything by anarchists. It seems.

Instead of Oligopolys being broken up they can be taken out by a smaller guy that would eventually have more incentive to undersell the people in power. Really, it's not utilitarian for me. It's just a matter of principle. People should be able to cooperate and manage their property as they choose.

[The Script]

We don't need the state to insure it. Private companies can do it much better.

Please find me a private insurance company with the resources and right to enter and search other companies that engage in anti-competative behaviour. Those who do such things will not cooperate with anyone investigating them.
Feel free to expand on how you think this should work.

No one can tell you exactly how an anarchic society will work.  If they could, it would not be an anarchic society.  What we can do is postulate based upon market principles, logic, best guesses and speculation.  The case for anarchy derives from principles of morality (if you adhere to the NAP) and maximizing individual freedom and market efficiency.  Logically following those principles leads you to an anarchy.  If you want to know some of the ways the specifics might work out, check out the book at the following link.   

http://freekeene.com/2008/02/07/the-market-for-liberty-pdf/

There's an audio book at freekeene.com and the pdf at mises.org (which is linked).  Both are free.  I really think it will be worth your time and might answer a lot of the questions I've seen you post here regarding an anarchic society.  It's likely you will not agree with all the authors' solutions and premises, but at least that will give a focal point for further discussion on this topic. 

[The Script]

Also, Atlas, that cartoon is rather silly and hasn't appeared to convince any of the proponents of democracy on this forum so far.  Perhaps it's time to put it to rest?   

[Anonymous]

Alright. Heh.

[DrSammyD]

Here is one of my favorite lectures on anarchy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5PbLLBfiM8&feature=channel_video_title

It's by Peter Leeson who's done a lot of work with pirate law and merchant law. The state is only one way of creating social order. There are others as well.

[JA37]

Instead of Oligopolys being broken up they can be taken out by a smaller guy that would eventually have more incentive to undersell the people in power. Really, it's not utilitarian for me. It's just a matter of principle. People should be able to cooperate and manage their property as they choose.

Except that wasn't what happened. Three larger companies who had the lions share of the market worked together to push up prices for everyone. No small guy appeared for a number of years, and it seems that the minor players either didn't want to, or couldn't break the oligolypoly.
Eventually the state stepped in, fined the companies, fined a few managers who were guilty and the prices dropped about 20% across the board.

[JA37]

Perhaps because almost all markets are regulated by the state?

I feel like a broken record here, but there is no such thing as a corporation without the the implicit and explicit grant of privilege by states.

How do you mean "regulated"? Safety standards and such laws? Or something more sinister?

If a few companies in a geographical area decides to cooperate to push up prices, how is this the fault of the state?
Anyone could start a company yet no one did. No barriers of entry from the states perspective.
The prices were artificially high. Just the thing you abhor when it's done by the state, or a state enforced monopoly. But when it's done by market leaders it's fine?

I believe that anyone who abuses monopoly, or monopoly like, power should be punished for it. Wouldn't you agree?

[MacFall]

The Nozickian argument that concentrations of "market power" (which is a contradiction in terms) will be diverted into political power (which is the only actual kind of power) tends to ignore the fact that attempts to establish power where none previously existed lack the appearance of legitimacy that permits political power to exist. That doesn't mean that the establishment of political power ex nihilo is impossible, but it is unlikely given a society that has rejected the legitimacy of political power.

[DrSammyD]

Perhaps because almost all markets are regulated by the state?

I feel like a broken record here, but there is no such thing as a corporation without the the implicit and explicit grant of privilege by states.

How do you mean "regulated"? Safety standards and such laws? Or something more sinister?

If a few companies in a geographical area decides to cooperate to push up prices, how is this the fault of the state?
Anyone could start a company yet no one did. No barriers of entry from the states perspective.
The prices were artificially high. Just the thing you abhor when it's done by the state, or a state enforced monopoly. But when it's done by market leaders it's fine?

I believe that anyone who abuses monopoly, or monopoly like, power should be punished for it. Wouldn't you agree?

It's called regulatory capture. The biggest firms in an industry are usually able to gain political power over the those that regulate them, and then they put up barriers to entry by making regulations that large firms are easily able to deal with, but smaller firms can't.

You can see this in the fact that Wal-mart supports mandating employer provided health care. They think that they could deal with it better than their competitors could, such as target.