abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
furthermore, politicians are nearly paralyzed by polls and opinion over every move they make, as they should be
How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
This thread went gay at page 2.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
therefore you win?
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
This is the Austrian Game Theory. Firms will always act in self interest and therefore will not cooperate with other firms in their market. This should be an easy concept to grasp for the lefties, who all distrust corporations, and rightfully so. There are businesses, ran for profit, of course they will only desire to become more profitable. This is how capitalism works, businesses are created to make money. The solution is not to attempt to regulate corporations into making less money, the solution is to remove the power and advantages that they can achieve. These different advantages always come from government, because without government, equality in the markets is unavoidable. One of the signs at occupy protests that I liked said that "we can't afford lobbyist", this message applies to small business as well. We all know how politics works, lobbyist bribe politicians to pass laws in their favor. This gives a huge advantage to those who can afford it, and this is how they take over the market. If you want corruption to end, then you have to take away the powers of politicians to regulate the market. This is the core of the problem, if you think that most regulations are being passed for the good of the people then you are kidding yourselves.
This has nothing to do with AC's ramblings about corporate armies and ronald mcdonald drive bys, because having a free market doesn't mean that firms can use force against one another. I know its awfully frightening for the lefties, but you guys need to realize how monopolies come to power.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Why are you bringing up Standard Oil again, we already discussed the favoritism of the government sponsored railroads.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Do you guys disagree that we have oligopolies now? under your glorious mixed market?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
As an example of a monopoly, it flies in the face of all of the "free-market-libertarian" propaganda which is theoretical. It has nothing to do with government sponsored rail lines, that is a lie. This monopoly was formed by cooperating corporations and was only stopped by the government.
Go ahead and give another damned analogy illustrating how anarchocapitalism breaks monopolies.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The bolded interests me greatly, because it would be grand if true, but it swims against the tide of history. I'd be grateful for a defense of the concept. cn
canndo
Well-Known Member
Corporate armies and Mcdonalds drive bys? We agree, limiting profit is not operable, limiting PR, and keeping regulations on target is the way to deal with corporations.
I can't see how small government can monitor large business. This is the principle reason for larger government- that is, more examiners, more monitors, more monitoring by more people. the right, not believing that corporations do what they do, believing that corporations are basicly good because they have their customers interests at heart, can't see a problem.
Ramblings? Where? I've never implied that corporations would use force on each other.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Pulled from Wiki:
The government identified four illegal patterns: 1) secret and semi-secret railroad rates; (2) discriminations in the open arrangement of rates; (3) discriminations in classification and rules of shipment; (4) discriminations in the treatment of private tank cars. The government alleged:[SUP][33][/SUP]
"Almost everywhere the rates from the shipping points used exclusively, or almost exclusively, by the Standard are relatively lower than the rates from the shipping points of its competitors. Rates have been made low to let the Standard into markets, or they have been made high to keep its competitors out of markets. Trifling differences in distances are made an excuse for large differences in rates favorable to the Standard Oil Company, while large differences in distances are ignored where they are against the Standard. Sometimes connecting roads prorate on oil—that is, make through rates which are lower than the combination of local rates; sometimes they refuse to prorate; but in either case the result of their policy is to favor the Standard Oil Company. Different methods are used in different places and under different conditions, but the net result is that from Maine to California the general arrangement of open rates on petroleum oil is such as to give the Standard an unreasonable advantage over its competitors"
If yu can provide anything to the contrary I would be willing to look at it.
If yu can provide anything to the contrary I would be willing to look at it.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
I strongly believe that the side effects of regulations are too great and keeping regulations "on target" is impossible in the political atrocity that we have today. I also do not believe that absolutely zero government and getting rid of the courts isn't the solution at this point in time. I think monopolies should be handled through the courts if they occur, do you agree that regulations can be the cause of monopolies due to weak principled politicians?
Sorry Canndo,I read the whole thread at once, I was referring to AC, my mistake will fix.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Can you point me in the right historical direction?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Early Renaissance - the condottieri.
Eighteenth-century triangular trade between America, Europe and Africa.
The union-busting militia employed here and in Europe in the early Twentieth.
It's a start. cn
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Correct me if i'm wrong, but these were private armies paid by the government correct? Just like the German mercenaries were paid to fight us during the Revolutionary War and the same basic idea of Blackwater. Im not sure how this is relevant to firms pitting armies for control of markets?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Government was involved; that is true. But these were militarized merchants/capitalists, and they did project that power. I didn't select simply mercenaries.
Actually, I think the privateer captains of the 18th are a better example than the triangle traders/slavers. Nominal Gov't patronage, but they really were the provisional arms of the trading companies. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I know all of this, it is the premise of my argument. Government did not facilitate, arrange, defend or in any way help create the standard oil monopoly. Government broke it. Heads of corporations conspired in an elitist collective. Are you even paying attention? This historical example contradicts anarchocapitalist theory.
deprave
New Member
Actually no it doesn't, as I pointed out, It is the best example the counter argument has but its complete fail because it doesn't contradict free market or anarcho capitalist at all, it fully supports it, because:
Standard oil was in a smaller niche market with limited demand and little competition and it wouldn't of lasted, they colluded with others to make it happen (including railroads) (ref: point G in my initial response). Additionally, they never took advantage of the consumers or price gouged.
Its almost like you didn't read my responses on this first page. You don't even want to try to understand the philosophy so stop pretending like your being open minded, your just being passive aggressive.
I would go as far as to say that nearly every modern Monopoly that is actually damaging to the consumer has historically been "LEGAL" under a government. (put that in your bong and smoke it)
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Are you special or something?
canndo
Well-Known Member
Although regulations may have side effects and unintended consequences, they are necessary to the protection of the citizenry, the society, the culture and the consumer. I do not believe that keeping regulations on target is an impossible task although it is made all the more difficult by the corporations themselves and the lack of regulation on their "contributions" and lobbying.
One of the biggest problems in our modern America is the fact that unprincipled politicians have any real effect on government. We will always have such politicians but you bring up an old point I make about that.
So long as we believe that government cannot work, it will not work.
You needn't change anything, I brought it up in the interest of veracity and my own sliping mind, as I might have said something like that, God knows why though.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Because it is like a fish "seeing" water, it is very difficult to perceive how firms contol markets - in our current world, the "armies" are shills, astroturf, paid commentators, paid posters, PR firms and front groups that vie for control of markets, usually by controling minds, hearts and opinions.
Have you seen the Chevron greenwashing campaign - "we agree"? Chevron is not selling us on the quality of their gasoline but on the fact that they want to look green for us even though in the background they are having all sorts of international problems with their pollution.
BP has been running a campaign on how clean the gulf is and how much they are behind us as hard working Americans "shit happens" and we fixed it is their message even though the reality is that "shit" didn't happen, BP was negligent.
Exxon's campaign extoling the virtues of teachers, science teachers in particular and the need for more in the comming years is about as disengenuous as it gets, considering that Exxon has been a heavy contributor to the global warming naysayers - in effect being anti-science. Nothing in their ads has anything to do with, oh, I don't know... the superiority of their gasoline maybe?
this is the war that is being fought and what we see is only the smallest portion of it, as in these cases the instigators are known and traceable.
The BP fiasco and it's subsequent image clean up is interesting, politicians, radiocons, "average citizens" (who were paid) and other spreaders of positive spin and opinion softened the image of BP after the spill and were all a result of emergency PR response teams that were far more effective than the emergency spill response teams.