How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I see you edited in a bunch after I replied, including a critique of social anarchism, which is something I never mentioned.

You also included the point in Holcombe's paper that it would be unethical for an individual to appropriate what had been held in commons.

First off, unethical really? These people worship Ayn Rand and she said altruism is unethical.

Furthermore, John Locke? Really?

Fuck him and fuck the entire notion that god has anything to do with liberties or property.
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
abandonconflict said:
I have read Holcombe's paper, you're pasting very selectively from a tenuous theoretical source which is stating that "free market" motives can do better what government does. You are using this as your source to insist that property held in commons is a concept compatible with anarchocapitalism. This paper describes how they can come to be, not how they could be controlled and maintained and this is very telling. They cannot. They are simply consolidated and absorbed and then passed in heredity.

Your shitter outside the window argument is a strawboy. We both know that is a dick move that no system, except maybe Rome would have tolerated.
Click to expand...
what your not taking from this AGAIN is that unethical and immoral acts such as harming others would have consequences and that in the free market there is no monopolies.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
deprave said:
what your not taking from this AGAIN is that unethical and immoral acts such as harming others would have consequences and that in the free market there is no monopolies.
Click to expand...
Anarchocapitalists, redefining ethics (see Ayn Rand redefining altruism) and redefining monopoly.

I know, you think a monopoly is where the government says only AT&T gets to sell Iphones and then AT&T gouges the prices.

However, the real monopoly is the private consolidation of vital finite natural resources. When such a monopoly is in place or when a significant portion of market is controlled, the owners of said resources will actually undercut competition, even at cost to prevent competition from gaining market share.
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
abandonconflict said:
Anarchocapitalists, redefining ethics (see Ayn Rand redefining altruism) and redefining monopoly.

I know, you think a monopoly is where the government says only AT&T gets to sell Iphones and then AT&T gouges the prices.

However, the real monopoly is the private consolidation of vital finite natural resources. When such a monopoly is in place or when a significant portion of market is controlled, the owners of said resources will actually undercut competition, even at cost to prevent competition from gaining market share.
Click to expand...
really? How about refer to post #2 or I believe page 2 of this thread where I covered that, this is how the thread started.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Redefining words is actually the primary tactic of anarchocapitalists/voluntaryists/feudalists/neoliberalists/rich white men/bourgeoisie.

"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy. “Libertari*ans”, had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over." ~Murray Rothbard
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
abandonconflict said:
So to answer the question posed in the thread title, it does so by redefining the word.
Click to expand...
No this refers to all monopolies, even 'vital nfinite naturual resources' whatever the fuck that is. Monopolies do not exist in free market, argued for first ~10 pages of this thread.
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
abandonconflict said:
You mean where you called Oil "a niche market"?
Click to expand...
It certainly was a 'niche market' when you are talking about specifically the midwest and north east before the invention of cars, and for oil lamps specificaly. There was alternatives known as 'candles', 'torches', 'fireplaces', Georgia, and 'the dark'.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
deprave said:
It certainly was a 'niche market' when you are talking about specifically the midwest and north east before the invention of cars, and for oil lamps specificaly. There was alternatives known as 'candles', 'torches', 'fireplaces', Georgia, and 'the dark'.
Click to expand...
Oh I see, Rockefeller was just incredibly lucky to have owned 80% of the oil in America and there is no connection with the fact that this resource is the object of all the fighting going on everywhere on earth today. Absolutely no connection at all. It was a niche market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top