What are the must-read Rothbard's books ?

[twiifm]

Without state there is no such thing as harmful monopoly. Either you provide value and make money, either you don't, loose money and die.

If the company is harmful to the point of initiating force (conflict with NAP), then, this become a government.
So then, the question is how to prevent that from happening.

Rothbard talk about private police and court, but this is a whole chapter of a book.
Since NAP is violated, the libertarian is in right to defend itself against it with force. But he would most likely use a private police for that.

If the company does not recognize violation, then, there is a private court to decide of the matter.
Such private court arbitrers are assigned by the 2 parts voluntary.
Each arbitrer has an incentive to not cheat, because this would affect his reputation, and thus diminish his customer base.
Such private court existed between merchants in the middle age, down to 1920.
In 1900, voluntary arbitration took hold in the US.
He takes a very long example in ancient Ireland, where tribes had a leader, but he could be attacked by everyone in court, and could not impose force against subjects.

I can't make justice to Rothbard, he discusses about that very deeply for a long part of "For a new libery", but that's the general idea.

Are you arguing that the market is inherently ethical?  

If a rich Brazilian land owner leases his land to Monsanto and Monsanto's crops wipes out the indigenous crops making all the local farms go bankrupt.  Then they spray pesticides that gets into the drinking water and people get sick.  This will be resolved how?  Because in the current system the people have a representative in govt and govt can sue Monsanto on their behalf and also govt can ban pesticide spraying

I'm not making this up.  This is reality.  How does Ancapistan deal with this?  And don't use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in your argument

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2014/apr/13/brazil_public_prosecutor_demands_ban_on_Glyphosate/

You've proven that private courts existed in the past.  Did they work well? If they're so great why dont we have them anymore?

[1715202563]

1715202563

[1715202563]

1715202563

[1715202563]

1715202563

[1715202563]

1715202563

[1715202563]

1715202563

[1715202563]

1715202563

[Nicolas Dorier]

Well, again, for pollution Rothbard has written a whole chapter on that.

As you guess I would tell, Monsanto is not an enterprise that rose from the free market.
Libertarian are against patents, which is the only reason why Monsanto is where it is.

Also, they have some dubious link with politician, european Union almost forced every farmer to use Monsanto's seed by outlawing any seed that have not been approved by a commission... "For public wealth".
http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds_european_commission_registration.html
This is only for Europe, there is interesting stuff to learn about them with their tie to the US government.

But this is not the subject of your question.
Your question is : What if a business violate NAP and refuse the judgment.

For Monsanto, this is clearly a violation, any arbitrer would clearly see the violation.
So either Monsanto accepts the judgment and so will pay the victim.
Either Monsanto does not accepts the judgment, and would have a moral sanction, be ostracized, discriminated.
Customers and partners would stop making contract with them, because they would know that no government would protect them if Monsanto refuse judgment.
Also, private police would refuse to protect them from aggression, because it is not in their interest to serve customers against the law.

Rothbard made a whole chapter also on this subject, and I'm always a student, but this is the general idea of the argument.

Rothbard goes even further by condemning the court for having weakened law and allowing pollution on massive scale during the 19th, to the point where collective action against industries was forbidden for "national economic interest". (Air and Sound pollution alike)

He explained that by making it legal, it kills incentives to develop technology that limit it pollution.
The government taxes the polluter, so what's the problem ? you would say .
The problem is that it is the small guy's farm, right next to the factory that suffer from pollution. So it should be his right to defend his farm. A tax does not help this guy.
The small tax does not match the prejudice of the victim, and worst, it does not compensate his loss with a dime.

[shawshankinmate37927]

The state established the intellectual property laws that allowed Microsoft to become a monopoly in the operating systems market.  They were giving away IE for free, which is their prerogative and not a threat to anyone's safety or a violation of anyone's rights.  They weren't forcing anyone to use it.  Lots of applications, utilities, and operating systems themselves are free.  Should Microsoft sue Ubuntu for making operating systems available for free and use the force of government to force me to pay for an operating system?  I use gmail for free.  Should someone that wants to charge me for webmail service have the grounds to sue Google and force me to pay for webmail?

Where are you going with this argument?  First you claim that the govt is responsible for abetting MS road to monopoly by establishing patent laws.  Then you say they shouldn't have tried to break up the MS monopoly.  Then you say no monopolies exist despite these patent protections because competitors like Ubuntu exist.

I'm so confused what your point is except you wanna say: govt = bad.

There were a couple of points, not just one.  Sorry, I'll try to make it al ittle easier for you.

1. Microsoft became as large as it is/was because of government (via intellectual property laws).
2. Microsoft could afford to give away free web browsers (because they were so large).
3. For some reason, some individuals see #2 as a problem, but not #1, which led to #2.

I'm saying government power shouldn't be used to protect and establish monopolies.  Seems strange to call upon government to break up a monopoly that it's responsible for creating.

Furthermore, you stated that "anti trust laws forced MS to remove IE from Windows".  Even if we assume that #2 were possible without #1, what's wrong with #2?  Why is it a crime to give away software for free?

Yes, it truly is bizarre, baffling, and downright illogical how the government works when we start thinking about it a little bit.

[twiifm]

The state established the intellectual property laws that allowed Microsoft to become a monopoly in the operating systems market.  They were giving away IE for free, which is their prerogative and not a threat to anyone's safety or a violation of anyone's rights.  They weren't forcing anyone to use it.  Lots of applications, utilities, and operating systems themselves are free.  Should Microsoft sue Ubuntu for making operating systems available for free and use the force of government to force me to pay for an operating system?  I use gmail for free.  Should someone that wants to charge me for webmail service have the grounds to sue Google and force me to pay for webmail?

Where are you going with this argument?  First you claim that the govt is responsible for abetting MS road to monopoly by establishing patent laws.  Then you say they shouldn't have tried to break up the MS monopoly.  Then you say no monopolies exist despite these patent protections because competitors like Ubuntu exist.

I'm so confused what your point is except you wanna say: govt = bad.

There were a couple of points, not just one.  Sorry, I'll try to make it al ittle easier for you.

1. Microsoft became as large as it is/was because of government (via intellectual property laws).
2. Microsoft could afford to give away free web browsers (because they were so large).
3. For some reason, some individuals see #2 as a problem, but not #1, which led to #2.

I'm saying government power shouldn't be used to protect and establish monopolies.  Seems strange to call upon government to break up a monopoly that it's responsible for creating.

Furthermore, you stated that "anti trust laws forced MS to remove IE from Windows".  Even if we assume that #2 were possible without #1, what's wrong with #2?  Why is it a crime to give away software for free?

Yes, it truly is bizarre, baffling, and downright illogical how the government works when we start thinking about it a little bit.

Oh OK.  You have some facts mixed up so you are drawing conclusions from errors

1.  Govt didn't protect MS.  MS might have some patents but those patents protect inventions only.  It doesnt prevent competitor to create competing OS (Mac OS, Linux, etc.).  MS came to desktop OS dominance on their own

2.  MS was investigated for antitrust because competitors Netscape charged MS with monopolistic practices.  By this time Gates was already gaining reputation as a ruthless businessman.  Then DOJ brought the case to trial

To answer your question why you can't give away something for free.  You can but not with the intent of snuffing put the competition.  Rockefeler did this w Standard Oil and got busted.  So there was legal precedent

Laws are sometimes baffling.  So we have a justice system to interpret these things

[shawshankinmate37927]

Oh OK.  You have some facts mixed up so you are drawing conclusions from errors

1.  Govt didn't protect MS.  MS might have some patents but those patents protect inventions only.  It doesnt prevent competitor to create competing OS (Mac OS, Linux, etc.).  MS came to desktop OS dominance on their own

Microsoft's entire business model relies on the concept of intellectual property and using the threat of government force by making "unauthorized copying" of their software a crime.

2.  MS was investigated for antitrust because competitors Netscape charged MS with monopolistic practices.  By this time Gates was already gaining reputation as a ruthless businessman.  Then DOJ brought the case to trial

Ruthlessly using intellectual property law to his advantage?  To the point that he was making so much money with Windows that he could give IE away for free.

To answer your question why you can't give away something for free.  You can but not with the intent of snuffing put the competition.  Rockefeler did this w Standard Oil and got busted.  So there was legal precedent

Being able to provide a product or service at a lower price than your competition should be commended.  Just because government made the mistake of punishing someone for doing this in the past doesn't mean they should keep making the same mistake.  Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

Laws are sometimes baffling.  So we have a justice system to interpret these things

And the more baffling those laws get, the more expensive it gets to cover the cost of all the lawyers, court costs, regulatory compliance, etc.  I don't advocate taking the current justice system away from those who are happy with the way it works, and what it costs.  However, those who aren't happy with it should be free to choose one that they prefer, but government likes having a monopoly on that sort of thing.

[btcbug]

...If a rich Brazilian land owner leases his land to Monsanto and Monsanto's crops wipes out...

Stop right there!

Corporations are a product of the state. Monsanto and others using copyright or patent laws to shelter themselves are the worst kind of evil. Who enforces their bullshit? The state of course! In a free market businesses can still get large and cumbersome, but at least it would be to a point. They'd be much more at the mercy of their customers and competitors to keep them in line.

[twiifm]

...If a rich Brazilian land owner leases his land to Monsanto and Monsanto's crops wipes out...

Stop right there!

Corporations are a product of the state. Monsanto and others using copyright or patent laws to shelter themselves are the worst kind of evil. Who enforces their bullshit? The state of course! In a free market businesses can still get large and cumbersome, but at least it would be to a point. They'd be much more at the mercy of their customers and competitors to keep them in line.

What is it with you guys and the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?  You guys keep bringing this tired argument.

Corporations are product of law.  Are you saying in Ancapistan there are no laws?  If this is what you guys think you are more batshit crazy than I thought.

[Erdogan]

A stare-you-in-the-face difference between a corporation and an association of investors in the free market, is that any free association has the same rights and responsibilities as single individuals, while corporations, using the coercion of the state, have less responsibility and more rights. One important detail is the cutoff responsibility to pay creditors in case of trouble. It is right there in the word limited in the company category, or Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung in german.

[Nicolas Dorier]

The point of twiifm was not whether Monsanto or Microsoft could exist or not without state.
The point is what happen if a powerful company violate NAP, which can happen, and Rothbard talks about the subject a lot. And which I explained in my previous post.

By the way, Microsoft might have been helped by patent to get where they are, but let's be clear : today, it is a truly great company, and thrive not because of government and patent protection but because customers love their product on overall. I am one of those. (That said, I don't defend windows 8 atrocities, but Microsoft is way more than that )

I don't like IE (I used to be a web dev), but it is a violation of NAP to prevent Microsoft to give IE free and by default on their own OS.

Microsoft's entire business model relies on the concept of intellectual property and using the threat of government force by making "unauthorized copying" of their software a crime.

I don't agree with your point. A patent for licensing an idea is clearly wrong from libertarian perspective.
But I don't see how it is against NAP that Microsoft do not want you to copy your software.
Buying a software is a contract where you exchange software against conditions and money, and you sign it by using the product. If the contract specify you should not copy the software, then you should not.

It is a valid breach of contract of copying, and should be judged as a NAP violation.
But the contract should not be enforced by public means.

If someone develop a better substitute, he should not be prevented to do so because of patent violation.

In the case of a violation of contract, the victim (Microsoft) would need to be compensated by the violator. The problem is that such violation is so minor and widespread, that it can't be enforced cost effectively.
I suspect that in a libertarian world, as they are doing now, Microsoft would only control companies for their licensing, and not consumers for this reason.

In fact the whole music and movie industry fall into the same bucket. The problem (in france) is that government is fighting for them to make pursuit cost effective for the company. (If the government see you are downloading torrent of some label, they can ban your internet connection)
Without such government enforcement, music and movie industries would always exist because there is more supply than demand, but would find different and more enforceable business model. (concerts, premium package, cinema, or other derived product)

[twiifm]

A stare-you-in-the-face difference between a corporation and an association of investors in the free market, is that any free association has the same rights and responsibilities as single individuals, while corporations, using the coercion of the state, have less responsibility and more rights. One important detail is the cutoff responsibility to pay creditors in case of trouble. It is right there in the word limited in the company category, or Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung in german.

You are describing a cooperative vs a corporation.  Both can be limited liability.

You can form a cooperative now if you want.  No need to wait for a stateless society

[shawshankinmate37927]

Microsoft's entire business model relies on the concept of intellectual property and using the threat of government force by making "unauthorized copying" of their software a crime.

I don't agree with your point. A patent for licensing an idea is clearly wrong from libertarian perspective.
But I don't see how it is against NAP that Microsoft do not want you to copy your software.
Buying a software is a contract where you exchange software against conditions and money, and you sign it by using the product. If the contract specify you should not copy the software, then you should not.

It is a valid breach of contract of copying, and should be judged as a NAP violation.
But the contract should not be enforced by public means.

If someone develop a better substitute, he should not be prevented to do so because of patent violation.

In the case of a violation of contract, the victim (Microsoft) would need to be compensated by the violator. The problem is that such violation is so minor and widespread, that it can't be enforced cost effectively.
I suspect that in a libertarian world, as they are doing now, Microsoft would only control companies for their licensing, and not consumers for this reason.

In fact the whole music and movie industry fall into the same bucket. The problem (in france) is that government is fighting for them to make pursuit cost effective for the company. (If the government see you are downloading torrent of some label, they can ban your internet connection)
Without such government enforcement, music and movie industries would always exist because there is more supply than demand, but would find different and more enforceable business model. (concerts, premium package, cinema, or other derived product)

I think we agree.  I understand that Microsoft doesn't want people freely copying their software, and that's fine, but it should be their responsibility to prevent it, (without using force) not the taxpayers'.  I believe Microsoft has lots of well-paid lobbyists to try to enact new intellectual property law and modify existing law in their favor.  Not just US law, but also other nations around the world and international trade agreements, etc.

[twiifm]

But this is not the subject of your question.
Your question is : What if a business violate NAP and refuse the judgment.

For Monsanto, this is clearly a violation, any arbitrer would clearly see the violation.
So either Monsanto accepts the judgment and so will pay the victim.
Either Monsanto does not accepts the judgment, and would have a moral sanction, be ostracized, discriminated.
Customers and partners would stop making contract with them, because they would know that no government would protect them if Monsanto refuse judgment.
Also, private police would refuse to protect them from aggression, because it is not in their interest to serve customers against the law.

I can see how this might work in an anarcho communist system.  But once you introduce a profit motive then every actor along that chain has a motive to be corrupted by money.  Or not even corrupted, just do business as they should.  Give preference to the highest bidder

Private police means private security, no?  Wouldn't they serve whoever paid them.  And if there are competing firms Monsanto would just find one willing to take them as client

[Nicolas Dorier]

Private police means private security, no?  Wouldn't they serve whoever paid them.  And if there are competing firms Monsanto would just find one willing to take them as client

Private police means they defend people against NAP violation. They have no right to initiate force and are subject to the same court.
If someone owns a street, he will have incentives to use private police to protect his street and passengers, because criminality would decrease the value of its property.

For Monsanto, would you consider to do business with someone that you know have a scam history, and have a high chance of scamming you ? because I don't.
Monsanto will find it harder to find security (not impossible but harder), and the reputation drawback would also influence customers, not wanting to be scammed and condemning their violation.

The impact of such violation is more costly than just paying the plaintiff + buying back the farm at a premium (if Monsanto don't want to invest in technological solution for the pollution)

Inside commercial stores, their is no public police, only private police that are already working with the same rules. (and without being armed)
Such private security are also not here just to defend the store owner, but also to defend their customers.

It is not because the poor can't buy such police for himself that he will not benefit from it when he goes to a store or walk on a private street. (Street that is most likely financed by the stores and cars)

You can note that most of the criminality today do not happen inside commercial stores, but in public area.

[Erdogan]

A stare-you-in-the-face difference between a corporation and an association of investors in the free market, is that any free association has the same rights and responsibilities as single individuals, while corporations, using the coercion of the state, have less responsibility and more rights. One important detail is the cutoff responsibility to pay creditors in case of trouble. It is right there in the word limited in the company category, or Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung in german.

You are describing a cooperative vs a corporation.  Both can be limited liability.

You can form a cooperative now if you want.  No need to wait for a stateless society

Correct, it is always possible to act more responsibly than the law requires, but in the current situation we are not fully protected from a corporation in error. They can declare bankruptcy and walk away.

[twiifm]

A stare-you-in-the-face difference between a corporation and an association of investors in the free market, is that any free association has the same rights and responsibilities as single individuals, while corporations, using the coercion of the state, have less responsibility and more rights. One important detail is the cutoff responsibility to pay creditors in case of trouble. It is right there in the word limited in the company category, or Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung in german.

You are describing a cooperative vs a corporation.  Both can be limited liability.

You can form a cooperative now if you want.  No need to wait for a stateless society

Correct, it is always possible to act more responsibly than the law requires, but in the current situation we are not fully protected from a corporation in error. They can declare bankruptcy and walk away.

Perhaps they can.  But the majority of corporations don't do this

What's stopping you from creating a corporation and doing the if you think you can game the system?

[Erdogan]

A stare-you-in-the-face difference between a corporation and an association of investors in the free market, is that any free association has the same rights and responsibilities as single individuals, while corporations, using the coercion of the state, have less responsibility and more rights. One important detail is the cutoff responsibility to pay creditors in case of trouble. It is right there in the word limited in the company category, or Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung in german.

You are describing a cooperative vs a corporation.  Both can be limited liability.

You can form a cooperative now if you want.  No need to wait for a stateless society

Correct, it is always possible to act more responsibly than the law requires, but in the current situation we are not fully protected from a corporation in error. They can declare bankruptcy and walk away.

Perhaps they can.  But the majority of corporations don't do this

What's stopping you from creating a corporation and doing the if you think you can game the system?

I have spoken.