There are more than a few posters on this board who are strongly anti-big government in a way that would make even the most conservative of Republicans go . Basically, they want a government that does not have the power to infringe on any of their constitutional rights and liberties whatsoever. These people makes claims that relate taxing to thieving and regulation to fascism. New policies, like Michelle Obama's school nutrition program (see the 20 page long shitshow for reference), that seem harmless, reasonable and hardly news worthy to people like myself are an obvious governmental plot to take total control over our lives to these "libertarians". I admit having government out of my life and out of my pocket sounds like a pretty damn good idea, especially when I consider the fact that I could get locked up for something as harmless as ripping a bong. But then again, Karl Marx makes a pretty damn convincing argument for communism. We all know how that worked out. Libertarianism, like communism, is a simple and beautiful idea. However, it is completely unrealistic. It never has been done and it never will be done. I When I was first gaining interest in politics, I was strongly attracted to the Libertarian philosophy. It seemed so right. Freedom for all, just like the founders intended! This was the article that brought me down to this brutal place we call earth. maybe it will do the same for some of you.
ORLY? Who is to say that its competitors would even want to sell their businesses? Even if this company did amass all phone companies under one name, if they start to provide poor service or charge too much they are leaving room in the market for another company to come in and provide a better service. It's not perfect, but neither is it perfect now. This is ridiculous. If this company starts buying up other companies and then starts to provide poor service/charge too much then they are just setting themselves up for failure. In a libertarian free-market, there are no restrictions to entering business. Another "evil rich man" could invest in the industry and undercut the crooked business. How hard do you think it would be to maintain a price gouging monopoly when there are no IP laws ? They could, but they would crash and burn because of competition. Isn't it cute how this guy just tries to shove the whole libertarian argument under the rug with this?
Apparently you didn't pay attention in history class. Monopolies are not some kind of theory. They're the reason we now have anti-trust laws.
how do you propose that a corporation (in essence a legal entity endowed by the government with certain rights above and beyond citizens) would even be able to exist in a libertarian society? it is the state that grants the "corporation" it's legal justification. no state, no corporation, only businesses and people. and the post makes a few glaring fallacies of its own. first, competition between business always drives down prices, that always helps the consumer. and i cannot see how the poster thinks that a free market is not a natural occurance, it is the taxation and regulation of exchange that is unnatural. trade between individuals existed long before the state did.
In a libertarian society it would be unlawful to forcefully prohibit a business from doing business. In our society the government does this, lol. If a business is doing so well that it isn't even possible for another business to compete with it, then I would gladly patronize that business.
What's to stop that business from jacking up the prices once other businesses can't compete? If another business tries to enter the market, they buy them out immediately. You guys are ignoring basic, proven economics. Okay. Explain why the rules of economics don't apply in a Libertarian society. Competition drives down prices until someone wins that competition. Then they control the price.
Maybe they will want to remain competitive? If they jack up the prices other businesses will be able to compete again. You say it like it's an absolute. Yes, they could buy out the competition, but they still remain vulnerable to another business simply out performing them and offering a better service at a lower price. It's called competition, and you're committing a fallacy by acting as if it doesn't exist Lol You can't win the competition, it never ends. The door always remains open for competition.
Chainstore paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Once a monopoly is formed, there is little to be gained from entering the monopolized industry, and the chances of gaining any significant portion of the market share are virtually non-existent.
There is one reason that I am an anarchist. It is not that anarchy solves the world's problems, it is that it wouldn't presuppose that there is any kind of justifiable violence or coercion. Right now we have large amounts of coercion because states have the ability to persuade individuals that they are morally obligated to do the things they do. The other justification for why things would be no worse off under a period of statelessness is that evil people are evil with or without law. Just like good people are good with or without law. You don't kill people, and you wouldn't start because there was no law prohibiting it. My opinion? I think statelessness could provide many benefits. It may not, though. I honestly believe that this is the ultimate realization of statelessness, I believe it is a cycle. The founders were the folks with the gonads enough to say, "We're making a country." This is an audacious action that only comes from those with the pioneer spirit. Resources were ripe for the picking, growth was powerful, the population was small (relatively). These are ideal conditions for those willing to grind out a good life full of hard work and happiness. The next generation becomes less attached to this work ethic and start utilizing their parents efforts. The next generation even more so, etc. This is when those people with nothing better to do decide what music your children can listen to or what television is acceptable at what times. These are completely arbitrary because there is no way to legislate against stupid. To close I would like to say that any argument other than statelessness contains the fallacy because I guarantee that in every state that has ever existed there has been at least one action that would be found morally unacceptable. Trying to justify these actions in anyway is a fallacy. Killing innocent people, an attribute the state has displayed for its entire existence, is never acceptable. Trying to justify this is the fallacy. If killing innocent people is wrong, it is wrong when the state does it. No way around it. I agree with the rest of the free market advocates here as well. There are countless benefits to statelessness in just this simple idea.
jimi thing, i dig your name. i would like to say that i am not looking to get involved in this argument, but i am reading the back and forth on this thread and i am seeing particular fallacies being committed again and again, mostly by jimi thing. thang, start looking more at the big picture of your arguments, you keep focusing too highly on particular specifics and overlooking logical errors in your argument. these are easy to point out by opposition and you leave yourself open to sounding pretty dumb. just a debate suggestion. advice: smoke a blunt, open your mind just a little bit more and take in the big picture.
How exactly does that link support this conclusion? And how exactly does that statement even seem reasonable to you? If a business is overcharging or providing sub par service another business absolutely can compete, grow, and take over their market share. To say that it isn't possible would be plain false. On second thought, what you said would be true if you were speaking about a monopoly that came about from a business out competing it's competitors. There would be little to gain from trying to compete with a company that could bring products/services to customers at a better rate than you could. It would be basically impossible to get a share of the market too. But, this would benefit consumers the most out of anything, and currently government breaks up these kind of monopolies. I would be glad for you to explain what you mean with that link and statement though, because I looked at the link and it seemed somewhat related, but not really. And anyway, it was said that the reasoning of that theory is shaky and not even considered rational in game theory lol.
How else would a monopoly come about? I'm not saying these companies would gain majority market share and immediately triple their prices/lower the quality of their products. They do that gradually and only to an extent so that possible competitors (who would have far less resources) could only afford to beat their price by minimal amounts. I posted the link to give an example of how a coercive monopoly can prevent the competition from entering the market by buying them out without losing money in the process.
Government granted monopolies, and monopolies that come about through government interventions in the market. So the uber company keeps selling at reasonable prices, and competitors can feasibly beat these prices by a little. Then the uber company buys them. This is just business, prices will rise and fall as battles are won in the competition "war". Competition is still keeping prices down and allowing for innovation in this scenario, is it not? I really don't see how you are talking about coercive monopolies (where's the coercion?). Furthermore, you did not show an example of how the competition can be prevented from entering the market because the scenario you explained involved companies entering the market, competing with the uber company (this competition keeps prices down), and then being bought (which probably makes for a good life for the owners of the company that got bought).
I don't know why I'm arguing with you. If you don't believe that monopolies are real then go open a history book or simply google the name Rockefeller.
Why you gotta straw man me? When did I ever say that I think monopolies don't exist? I did mention a bit about how I think some monopolies (monopolies gained through efficiency) can be beneficial to consumers. Maybe that is what spawned this knee-jerk straw man accusation.
no thats not what hes saying. you're over simplifying and putting words in his mouth. the only time i saw him say that monopolies are good is when he talked about a monopoly that was beneficial to the consumer. and in that case yes, if they are beneficial to the consumer, monopolies are good. but then you spun him pointing out a single pro for monopolies and blanketed his entire argument in two very poignant sentences. can you say fallacy? i knew you could
Couldn't get past the first sentence of that article. Too early in the morning for that kind of bullshit. I'll go through the article line by line later today. For now, I would like to know: who is that article written by and where did you come across it?