How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?

cannabineer said:

Corporations are the ultimate vehicles of self-interest. The model here never was Marx but Macchiavelli. The corporation's prime principle, "accrue advantage", is in structural conflict with the highest principle of government, "be just to all".
So it astonishes me that we have posters here who genuinely believe in utterly free markets, a codeword for plutocracy, as a force for good. cn

Click to expand...

I said I had nothing to add, I lied.

the very fact that we have such posters - the ones who genuinely believe in utterly free markets - or more so, that the only reason a truely free market cannot work is because of government bears whitness to the power of corporations and their campaign to have everyone believe as they would have us believe. This is why I asked Beenthere that very question. Most of those who believe that if only that free market existed everything in the country would fall into place, also believe every other thing that corporate America would have them believe.

tort reform is good, lawyers are bad (contrary to a free market where even lawyers should be free to sue as they please for any amount they please)
corporations will always work better without regulation and things will always be cheaper with less taxation. Freedom to eat fatty and salty foods and drink endless amounts of sugary drinks is a God given right.

People have choice and the market is only there to provide for those choices, the market is actually the slave of the consumer, always following what you, the consumer want - and it is government that gets in the way of that holy marriage.

these are just a few of the things that those who believe in a totally free market also believe in - and corporations are thrilled that they do.


If there is a problem, if consumers are abused in some way, it can't be the innocent corporation that is at fault, as they always do the people's bidding. It must be either not enough freedom for the market, or government incursion into that perfect marketplace that is always instantly self correcting and benevolent - because it always has the consumer's best interest at it's driving core.

cannabineer said:

By what definition, and in what market? cn

Click to expand...

The government claims a monopoly on the use of force. ....and no I don't want to go down the semantics rabbit hole...not now anyway....gotta go tend to muh chickens.

Rob Roy said:

The government claims a monopoly on the use of force. ....and no I don't want to go down the semantics rabbit hole...not now anyway....gotta go tend to muh chickens.

Click to expand...

But monopolies are market creatures. "The use of force" is not a commodity. I would defend semantic rabbit holes ... their resolution is a key component of proofing philosophies for utility/applicability in the real world. cn

Rob Roy said:

The government claims a monopoly on the use of force. ....and no I don't want to go down the semantics rabbit hole...not now anyway....gotta go tend to muh chickens.

Click to expand...

Even if we do decide that the use of force is not a commodity, there are plenty of other entities from private police to the mob to other countries that also have access to and use force. The u.s. is not a monopoly.

cannabineer said:

Corporations are the ultimate vehicles of self-interest. The model here never was Marx but Macchiavelli. The corporation's prime principle, "accrue advantage", is in structural conflict with the highest principle of government, "be just to all".
So it astonishes me that we have posters here who genuinely believe in utterly free markets, a codeword for plutocracy, as a force for good. cn

Click to expand...

I would have used the word feudalism, but plutocracy fits.

canndo said:

there is no free market, there will never be a free market and this is not because of government. Corporations do not what, nor have they ever wanted a free market and they will do anything in order to prevent such an environment.

Click to expand...

I tend disagree if I understand you here, I believe an utterly free market is precisely what the plutocracy wants. They certainly prefer that to a left leaning system which would redistribute their wealth.

Rob Roy said:

The government claims a monopoly on the use of force. ....and no I don't want to go down the semantics rabbit hole...not now anyway....gotta go tend to muh chickens.

Click to expand...

As radical a lefty as I am, this is why I favor protecting the 2nd amendment. In fact, I favor making gun laws even more liberal, although I would balance that with education.

abandonconflict said:

I tend disagree if I understand you here, I believe an utterly free market is precisely what the plutocracy wants. They certainly prefer that to a left leaning system which would redistribute their wealth.

Click to expand...

If I sell lawn chairs, the last thing I want is anyone else in the market selling lawn chairs, What I don't want is competition and I will do anything I can to keep that from happening.

canndo said:

If I sell lawn chairs, the last thing I want is anyone else in the market selling lawn chairs, What I don't want is competition and I will do anything I can to keep that from happening.

Click to expand...

Then you don't want anyone telling you what is fair and what is not fair or limiting your tactics to remove said competition. This is particularly so, if a very large portion of market share is already concentrated and centralized. This is alarmingly true where land, natural resources and food production are already privately owned by an elite cooperating few.

abandonconflict said:

Then you don't want anyone telling you what is fair and what is not fair or limiting your tactics to remove said competition. This is particularly so, if a very large portion of market share is already concentrated and centralized. This is alarmingly true where land, natural resources and food production are already privately owned by an elite cooperating few.

Click to expand...

As I said, I don't want a free market.

uh, Rob is Right..any government claims monopoly on the use of violent force and power...

deprave said:

uh, Rob is Right..any government claims monopoly on the use of violent force and power...

Click to expand...

There is imo an important distinction between sole right and monopoly. cn

deprave said:

uh, Rob is Right..any government claims monopoly on the use of violent force and power...

Click to expand...

Corporations with private armies preferable? That would turn into something like Exxon or BP simply hiring Blackwater to wage a war instead of what we had in Iraq.

Also, I think the courts are making progress in the right direction.

Police already seem to be profit oriented, needing to write tickets for city revenue and I dislike it.

With modifications, this could make sense, armed workers unions...lol.

abandonconflict said:

For if monopolies can exist in anarchocapitalism, you do not have anarchy, you have feudalism.

Click to expand...

We already live in a Feudal system.

The government is the landholder and grants parcels to the peasants in return for property taxes paid forever.

I would like to register a patent on oil...

You can compete for market share of widget and iPhone sales in your laissez faire, but the resources are monopolized.

abandonconflict said:

Corporations with private armies preferable? That would turn into something like Exxon or BP simply hiring Blackwater to wage a war instead of what we had in Iraq.

Also, I think the courts are making progress in the right direction.

Police already seem to be profit oriented, needing to write tickets for city revenue and I dislike it.

With modifications, this could make sense, armed workers unions...lol.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by Exxon and BP hiring blackwater being any different from the war we had in IRAQ or how the reality of the situation was better or something?

Corporations with private armies preferable? I am not sure I can distinguish the difference without venturing into idealism, especially these days heh, philosophically the difference is again that government has a complete monopoly on power and the use of coercion and violence. I think that is far worse.

This is really the fundamental underpinning of anarchy, free market, and libertarian philosophy is that everyone should be judged equally and this is not the case when you have a government because THEY are not held accountable for their actions and have a monopoly on use of force.

deprave said:

I am not sure what you mean by Exxon and BP hiring blackwater being any different from the war we had in IRAQ or how the reality of the situation was better or something?

Corporations with private armies preferable? I am not sure I can distinguish the difference without venturing into idealism, especially these days heh, philosophically the difference is again that government has a complete monopoly on power and the use of coercion and violence. I think that is far worse.

This is really the fundamental underpinning of anarchy, free market, and libertarian philosophy is that everyone should be judged equally and this is not the case when you have a government because THEY are not held accountable for their actions and have a monopoly on use of force.

Click to expand...

You are saying, you want corporations to have their own armies. Free market libertarianism is as right wing as it can get. Only the government can hold them accountable.

abandonconflict said:

You are saying, you want corporations to have their own armies. Free market libertarianism is as right wing as it can get. Only the government can hold them accountable.

Click to expand...

Except when the government IS a corporation....with a monopoly on the use of force and "arbitration".

Rob Roy said:

Except when the government IS a corporation....with a monopoly on the use of force and "arbitration".

Click to expand...

The gobmint? You mean the federal one or the state you live in or county or city or what? You don't have the right to assemble and bear arms? You don't have the right to join a militia?

You are correct that the gov't has been in bed with corporations, but the best solution is certainly not to have these corporations become the government.

Rob Roy said:

Except when the government IS a corporation....with a monopoly on the use of force and "arbitration".

Click to expand...

You can fling words around all you want Rob but government isn't a corporation, government does not have a "monopoly" on force and in this country theh "arbitration" happens to deeply involve citizens.