|
Anonymous
Guest
|
 |
May 26, 2011, 12:44:42 AM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If you don't want people to know you're a scumbag then don't be a scumbag." -- margaritahuyan
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
May 26, 2011, 01:49:08 AM |
|
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
|
|
May 26, 2011, 01:50:53 AM |
|
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
Guest
|
|
May 26, 2011, 02:05:33 AM |
|
Alright. Heh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
May 26, 2011, 07:23:05 AM |
|
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
|
|
May 26, 2011, 07:56:45 AM |
|
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
Member
 Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
Agorist
|
|
May 26, 2011, 03:20:09 PM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 55
Merit: 0
|
|
May 26, 2011, 07:15:27 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
