Anarcho-capitalism, Monopolies, Private dictatorships

[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.

[1713540435]

1713540435

[1713540435]

1713540435

[1713540435]

1713540435

[1713540435]

1713540435

[1713540435]

1713540435

[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).