Anarcho-capitalism, Monopolies, Private dictatorships

[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.