Anarcho-capitalism, Monopolies, Private dictatorships

[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.