Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Also, there haven't exactly been any large scale stateless societies. Assuming the consumers are able to find out about the deception, sure. Pretty big assumption if you ask me.
Uhhh... there is a correlation and you can try to prove me wrong. (maybe you meant argumentum ad ignorantiam? But isn't the burden of proof on you?) The Robber Barons were all in bed with government. Wall Street is all in bed with government. Big business is all in bed with government. What do you think the bailouts are? So? We've had supposed free markets, yet none of the corporate monsters could rise to power without the state. Your just going to pass that off as a random coincidence? What do you think brought ______ to power? (provide an example if you dare). It always comes out. What do you think the "bust cycle" is? It's the consumers finding out about the market distortions fed by the Federal Reserve. And then instead of letting the people who profited off the boom FAIL, they are bailed out, letting the middle class go down. Monopolization right in front of your eyes and everyone's still too dumb to see it.
Is the term "free market" a deliberate euphemism? There is no such thing. Never has been and never could be. A market requires rules and rules require coercion - either by the participants themselves or by an outside force. You'd think that conservatives - schooled on Hobbes - would understand that. The whole term "free market" is as misleading and demogogic in the conservative era as "free love" was in the liberal era.
[/QUOTE] Yeah someone said that. It was how this thread was started. When one entity has a majority of supply, when one entity is closer to demand, and when multiple entities work together for the good of their bottom line, you get monopolies in a "free market" the same as in a more heavily regulated one. This thread should be ended just like I said at "nothing stops monopolies from forming in free markets." A new thread more appropriate now is: Do the monopolies formed in free markets present an over all positive or negative effect for the consumer?
I haven't read since like page 1. But past precedent show's that monopolies DO form in a free market over time. If one was to look at the business world in the U.S. from about 1860 to 1910 (when laissez-faire was quite literally "hands-off, government!"), you see very many monopolies and trusts in the market. All it takes an aggressive business-man with a head like a chess player, and there are plenty of those around. You can't have a 100% free-market, it just isn't efficient. You need to have a 95% free-market, because the only thing big enough to step in and protect from business is the government. Look, I've already done this in another thread a while back, here you go. I don't feel like going in and editing it, so before you read it, you have to know that this was written in opposition to/in an Anarchy-Capitalistic Society thread. In the parts talking about specifically anarchy, I've made some bolds that are relevant here. Don't you know that everything those corporate fat-cats get their greedy, grubby hands on becomes ruined? No, but really, you just can't have a 100% free-market, there needs to be some government regulation. So like, 95% free-market is what has my support.
Why would this ever be profitable when the way to get market share is to screw over your competitors with lower prices and higher quality? As long as there are no barriers to competition price fixing can't occur because the greedy entrepreneur will always fill the gap with prices that aren't artificially high.