Corporate Welfare

[guerilla]

How does that prohibit market manipulation?

How can you manipulate the market when there are strong property rights?

It's simplistic to say any company can compete in a free market provided there is no government interference.

Why couldn't they?

First to market has an advantage and can run at a loss to prevent competition. Existing companies with large bankrolls can move into new markets and crush newer competition through price wars because businesses will always seek to limit competition.

But none of these things violate property rights. To argue against this, would be to argue that winners should make just as much as losers. There is an advantage to winning otherwise no one would try to win.

The incentives behind winning are correct. It's what keeps us from becoming lemmings.

In theory, government regulation is supposed to limit that, but our legislators are bought and paid for so it never works as intended. However, with no regulations, monopolies would cripple our economy.

The former is true and makes my case. The latter is a non sequitur.

Monopolies have always been government granted. The very first monopolies were patent monopolies. Only one producer of a good allowed BY LAW. You must be using another definition, because again, you're arguing against very successful winners. Perhaps Michael Jordan had an unfair advantage in the NBA. Maybe we should have made him play without shoes, or taken everyone else off the Bulls to make it more "fair" for the rest of the NBA.

If you want to claim that a business is doing nefarious things, and I will agree that a great many are as evil as government, then talk about what they have done wrong. Words like "monopoly" are weasel words in these debates because they infer wrong doing without explaining precisely what the wrong doing is.

There is nothing wrong with being first to market, crushing your competitors with more capital, more hustle or more good fortune. Let's not imply there is.

Because crony capitalism is just another form of corruption.

Crony capitalism is specifically the combination of state and business interests. It is a very specific form of corruption we are discussing. What makes crony capitalism unique, is that the government has the ability to tax, which means they can forcefully take money from you, and give it to select businessmen, instead of those businessmen having to compete in the marketplace for your money honestly. We all abhor this. The problem isn't that businesses want profits. We all want profits. The problem is that because government has this godlike authority to take from people without any limit, they create an unfair advantage for companies like GE that don't pay taxes but get lots of government contracts. It's basically a direct wealth transfer from the people to GE, and the government is the facilitator.

Until people address the government's role, it will continue. And I only see two solutions.

1. Elect angels.

2. Reduce government's power over the economy.

The profit motive will ALWAYS lead to market manipulation and barriers to entry being raised.

There is a difference between a natural barrier to entry, like you being more handsome than I am, and being able to attract a better mate, than artificial barriers where you prohibit me from being able to talk to single women at all.

What government regulation does, is allow me to pay someone to cut up your face so I am the most pretty boy. That's clearly not a natural barrier to entry.

Any business seeks to create barriers to entry and it isn't always through regulation, particularly early on in a product life cycle.

I agree with this, but as I wrote, these two types of barrier to entry are not equal, just as crony capitalism isn't just any form of corruption. Some things we can change (government, regulatory levels, taxes) and some things we can't (human nature).

I don't deny human nature. I'm talking about rational (means consistent with ends) ways of dealing with human nature.

 

[guerilla]

You've seen Century of Self, I believe? Surely you can't believe that if left 100% unregulated, the Corporations of the world would simply balance themselves out perfectly and the end result would be a good one for us all?

I believe that free markets have lead to more peace and economic growth than every other system we have tried. That's the empirical claim.

I also believe that rigorous competition and strong property rights are necessary for a free and prosperous society.

Corporations are created by the state, by law. There is no corporation without the state, and a corporation is essentially a strawman who can do business on behalf of the shareholders, and suffer limited commercial liability for those actions. A corporation as such, wouldn't exist in a free market, because it is unlikely people would accept universally such laws against liability.

Also, I haven't seen Century of Self.

And about full monopolies, do you believe they simply can't happen or last for very long under a truly free market, or that they aren't a problem?

We have to define what a monopoly is. I believe monopoly is a position of privilege granted by a legal authority. My definition is pretty consistent with history.

Other folks claim monopolies are big businesses that have most of, or all of a market's share.

I always point out that if a business has all of a market's share, then it isn't a very free market, because free markets have competition. A lack of competition is the canary in the coalmine that the market is somehow rigged, typically by some legal authority granted by the state.

I love big businesses like Amazon that do an amazing job each day. If you do a good job better than everyone else, and you can develop scale, then you deserve as much market share as consumers are willing to give you.

I think most folks have done very little research into monopolies and anti-trust. They might be surprised to know that most anti-trust suits are brought by competitors, not by consumers. When Microsoft got beat up, it wasn't users complaining, it was its less successful competitors. They used the government to hurt Microsoft rather than compete in the market. It's like handicapping the smart kid so the dumb kids in the class can feel good about their shitty test scores. It's a race to the bottom.

 

[guerilla]

The anarcho capitalists are still missing the root cause. It's not government in of itself, it's the ever lasting struggle for consolidation of power.

Ancaps are not Utopians. We aren't missing that point at all. I believe we're the only ones rationally addressing it. Rational in the sense that our means (methods) should logically lead to our ends (goals).

Remove government, those with the most wealth are still going to find ways to consolidate power and create advantage outside of fairy tale pure market economic forces.

Uhm, that is exactly what the government allows the wealthy to do. It is a vehicle for the wealthy to consolidate and protect its gains. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the government lived up to the fairy tale conception people have that it is for the people and serves the higher interests of humanity. Ancaps recognize that by creating a single authority with no accountability to a higher power, you create the problem of crony capitalism or fascism as we more honestly would have labeled it 80 years ago.

It's been happening ever since the dawn of aggressive agriculture and will continue as long as humans organize themselves in civilizations instead of in tribes. The problems started happening when the social framework we evolved to work in became untenable via advances in technology.

I think it is human nature. We weren't some benevolent race of wood faeries until we discovered how to till soil. Humans are economizing creatures. If we weren't we wouldn't have survived the more brutal times in our past. Nature selected us for our ability to economize.

I don't try to fuck over my fellow man, which is why I get into discussions like this. I'd like to see all of us prosper because trade is not a zero sum game. The more capitalist our society, the better off we all are. As bad as things may be now, they have certainly been much worse in the past.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

How can you manipulate the market when there are strong property rights?

A free market can, and will be manipulated by whoever has the most resources, in order to prevent others from gaining those resources (through price fixing, strategic partnerships, etc - none of which have anything to do with "strong property rights"). In a utopian version of a free market (ie. what AnCaps tend to believe in) this doesn't happen because somehow magically the free market can solve all problems. In reality, human nature prevents this from happening.

One of the problems lies in the AnCap belief that "greed is good", as you stated. Greed is not good or bad, it is simply a motivating factor. Calling greed good, is akin to calling guns bad. The fact is, the person using the gun, or acting on greed will determine whether it is used for good or bad.

Why couldn't they?

Because established companies with larger bankrolls will always seek to prevent competition. Not only do they have economies of scale in their favor, but they can afford to run at a loss for years in order to stifle competition.

But none of these things violate property rights. To argue against this, would be to argue that winners should make just as much as losers. There is an advantage to winning otherwise no one would try to win.

The incentives behind winning are correct. It's what keeps us from becoming lemmings.

I have no idea what this has to do with what you quoted. If you could clarify I'd be glad to respond.

The former is true and makes my case. The latter is a non sequitur.

Monopolies have always been government granted. The very first monopolies were patent monopolies. Only one producer of a good allowed BY LAW. You must be using another definition, because again, you're arguing against very successful winners. Perhaps Michael Jordan had an unfair advantage in the NBA. Maybe we should have made him play without shoes, or taken everyone else off the Bulls to make it more "fair" for the rest of the NBA.

Monopolies have not always been government granted. Aristotle wrote about a monopoly on olive presses that had absolutely nothing in the way of government intervention. Besides, you know it's also a non-sequitur to even argue that all monopolies are government granted (which isn't true, but I digress), therefore without government intervention there would be no monopolies. You know better than to try and slip that past me.

If you want to claim that a business is doing nefarious things, and I will agree that a great many are as evil as government, then talk about what they have done wrong. Words like "monopoly" are weasel words in these debates because they infer wrong doing without explaining precisely what the wrong doing is.

I've already stated the wrongdoing, ie. limiting competition through price fixing, strategic partnerships etc. And if you really want to talk about weasel words, pretending that a "true free market" would cure everything is a weasel argument because since it's never been done it can't be proven wrong. It's like asking someone to prove God doesn't exist. We can debate theory all day long, but until the system is put in place there is no evidence to support it.

There is nothing wrong with being first to market, crushing your competitors with more capital, more hustle or more good fortune. Let's not imply there is.

I didn't say it's wrong. I simply stated that is what provides a competitive advantage, and is what would be used in order to stifle competition.

We have to define what a monopoly is. I believe monopoly is a position of privilege granted by a legal authority. My definition is pretty consistent with history.

Other folks claim monopolies are big businesses that have most of, or all of a market's share.

I always point out that if a business has all of a market's share, then it isn't a very free market, because free markets have competition.

Once again, you fail to take into account the effect that economies of scale and vast expendable resources will always have by allowing barriers to entry to be erected in order to stifle competition. You also fail to take into account enormous capital expenditures necessary to enter certain markets, none of which are attributable to government interference.

Ancaps are not Utopians. We aren't missing that point at all. I believe we're the only ones rationally addressing it. Rational in the sense that our means (methods) should logically lead to our ends (goals).

Ancaps are Utopian because the theory only works if everybody agrees to play fair and abide by the same set of rules, and human nature guarantees that will never happen - government presence or not.

I don't try to fuck over my fellow man, which is why I get into discussions like this.

Unfortunately not everyone is as noble, which is why Anarco-Capitalism is Utopian.

 

[Lucidity]

Ancaps are not Utopians. We aren't missing that point at all. I believe we're the only ones rationally addressing it. Rational in
the sense that our means (methods) should logically lead to our ends (goals).

Uhm, that is exactly what the government allows the wealthy to do. It is a vehicle for the wealthy to consolidate and protect its gains. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the government lived up to the fairy tale conception people have that it is for the people and serves the higher interests of humanity. Ancaps recognize that by creating a single authority with no accountability to a higher power, you create the problem of crony capitalism or fascism as we more honestly would have labeled it 80 years ago.

Admittedly I haven't spent a lot of time doing the due diligence, but my knowledge of history is sorely lacking in examples of a state of anarchy or dissolution of government that resulted in a prosperous, durable market economy driven society devoid of any government. Something about Somalia in the 90s for a little while... before it got taken over by Western governments and war lords?

In the vacuum of one government, the natural tendency is for another government to replace it and the invisible hand of pure unadulterated capitalism doesn't seem to have done a very good job of warding that off. If anarcho capitalism should be the most successful approach, shouldn't it be springing up and prospering all over the place? I'm no fan of government, but as far as I can tell it's an inevitability and I have my preferences between the different forms of it. I'd be curious to know of whatever examples you can provide to the contrary because I'd like to go visit there.

I think it is human nature. We weren't some benevolent race of wood faeries until we discovered how to till soil. Humans are economizing creatures. If we weren't we wouldn't have survived the more brutal times in our past. Nature selected us for our ability to economize.

I don't try to fuck over my fellow man, which is why I get into discussions like this. I'd like to see all of us prosper because trade is not a zero sum game. The more capitalist our society, the better off we all are. As bad as things may be now, they have certainly been much worse in the past.

I agree that human "nature", if it exists, has probably always been the same all the way back to hunter gatherer days. I also agree that we were always economizing. Tribal societies usually didn't try to conquer all of their neighbors even though they were usually at a constant state of low level territorial war with them. Why is that? I think it's because they didn't see the benefit of doing so. It wasn't until the hardcore agricultural engines got started that the capability and incentive (conquer more land, put more land to tilt, feed more soldiers, conquer more land) to rule over as many fellow humans as possible came into play, and we've been at it ever since. As long as we're on that same train, I don't see the drive for power and the consolidation thereof slowing down any time soon under any political or economic system.

 

[guerilla]

A free market can, and will be manipulated by whoever has the most resources, in order to prevent others from gaining those resources (through price fixing, strategic partnerships, etc - none of which have anything to do with "strong property rights").

You're right, they have nothing to do with strong property rights. So I ask you, what is wrong with doing any of that?

In a utopian version of a free market (ie. what AnCaps tend to believe in) this doesn't happen because somehow magically the free market can solve all problems.

Strawman unless you can find me an Ancap who believes that. Or better yet, explain how such an opinion has anything to do with Ancap.

In reality, human nature prevents this from happening.

Which is why Ancaps are not Utopians and your previous statement was a strawman, and not substantive at all.

One of the problems lies in the AnCap belief that "greed is good", as you stated. Greed is not good or bad, it is simply a motivating factor. Calling greed good, is akin to calling guns bad. The fact is, the person using the gun, or acting on greed will determine whether it is used for good or bad.

You cannot rationally value anything if you aren't greedy (self-interested). It would be a performative contradiction to say "I don't value greed."

Because established companies with larger bankrolls will always seek to prevent competition. Not only do they have economies of scale in their favor, but they can afford to run at a loss for years in order to stifle competition.

And why is this a problem? Why is someone willing to run at a loss bad for anyone? The consumer gets a better deal, and the producer willingly sets his price that low, so we can determine that the loss is acceptable to him. Where is the evil in this?

I have no idea what this has to do with what you quoted. If you could clarify I'd be glad to respond.

Why greed is good. Without self-interest, we couldn't act rationally. Basic rational egoism.

Monopolies have not always been government granted. Aristotle wrote about a monopoly on olive presses that had absolutely nothing in the way of government intervention.

It also had nothing to do with monopoly. He's describing speculation erroneously, assuming the translation is good. By his definition, anyone who corners a market is a monopolist regardless of whether he can prevent competition or not.

Besides, you know it's also a non-sequitur to even argue that all monopolies are government granted (which isn't true, but I digress), therefore without government intervention there would be no monopolies. You know better than to try and slip that past me.

That's an improper use of non sequitur. I apparently did slip it past you, because you haven't refuted any of my points so far.

I've already stated the wrongdoing, ie. limiting competition through price fixing, strategic partnerships etc.

Why is that wrong? Why is it wrong for people to partner up? Why is it wrong to fix prices? Are you entitled to a particular price for a good? Should people be forced to sell you things? If so, why? Why do you have a right to a burger or gallon of gas at a price regardless of what the seller wants to ask for it?

And if you really want to talk about weasel words, pretending that a "true free market" would cure everything is a weasel argument because since it's never been done it can't be proven wrong.

But that's not my argument at all. That's a strawman. If you want to stick it on me, then prove where I said "true free market would cure everything" because I don't believe that and would love to see your source for such a claim.

If you can't prove it, man up and admit that you're attributing statements to me which are not true.

We can debate theory all day long, but until the system is put in place there is no evidence to support it.

This happens every time we debate. It's a non-argument. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I didn't say it's wrong. I simply stated that is what provides a competitive advantage, and is what would be used in order to stifle competition.

If it is not wrong, then what is your problem with it?

Once again, you fail to take into account the effect that economies of scale and vast expendable resources will always have by allowing barriers to entry to be erected in order to stifle competition. You also fail to take into account enormous capital expenditures necessary to enter certain markets, none of which are attributable to government interference.

But you have already said this is not wrong, so again, what is the problem with it?

Ancaps are Utopian because the theory only works if everybody agrees to play fair and abide by the same set of rules, and human nature guarantees that will never happen - government presence or not.

Maybe you should do some research into what Ancap is and is not. Continually posting strawmen like this

Unfortunately not everyone is as noble, which is why Anarco-Capitalism is Utopian.

is either deliberately sabotaging the discussion or a sign of profound ignorance. I can sit here and call you a dumbdumb all day, but that doesn't make my argument, and you posting strawmen has much the same effect.

If you want to have an honest argument with me, let's do it. Otherwise, let's find a better use of our time. I can argue with thousands of people online who avoid backing up their arguments.

A good place to start would you be stating clearly what your issue with my stated position is. Not the position you want to make up for me (the strawman) but my position as I have articulated it.

 

[guerilla]

Admittedly I haven't spent a lot of time doing the due diligence, but my knowledge of history is sorely lacking in examples of a state of anarchy or dissolution of government that resulted in a prosperous, durable market economy driven society devoid of any government. Something about Somalia in the 90s for a little while... before it got taken over by Western governments and war lords?

I am not making an appeal to history. I am making a logical claim.

In the vacuum of one government, the natural tendency is for another government to replace it and the invisible hand of pure unadulterated capitalism doesn't seem to have done a very good job of warding that off.

I would agree with this.

If anarcho capitalism should be the most successful approach, shouldn't it be springing up and prospering all over the place?

Why did people keep slaves? Why did communism persist so long? Mankind doesn't always make good choices, particularly collective choices.

I'm no fan of government, but as far as I can tell it's an inevitability and I have my preferences between the different forms of it.

Women as chattel property and slavery were inevitable to people 1000 years ago. Abject poverty and persistent starvation were inevitable to people through most of our history. Paradigms change when we mature as a species.

I don't see the drive for power and the consolidation thereof slowing down any time soon under any political or economic system.

I think we're seeing the beginnings of a sincere rejection of arbitrary authority and state power, as people want to, and more so than ever before, can, live their own lives without the need for a central planner or some controlling bureaucracy. Is a freer world going to happen without any effort? Is it a sure thing? Heck no. We're a bunch of smelly shaved monkeys with nukes. The world could be over in 12 hours. Getting to a better place is always a result of the battle of ideas and sweat equity of people who believe in bringing about a change (good or bad).

No offense, but maybe you shouldn't have used the term Anarcho-capitalist, because Ancap isn't what most people here think it is. You can find a pretty good write up of what Ancap is on Wikipedia, or checking out The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard and Machinery of Freedom by David D. Friedman.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

That's an improper use of non sequitur. I apparently did slip it past you, because you haven't refuted any of my points so far.

No, it's not. There is no connection between your argument (all monopolies are created by government interference) and your conclusion (without government interference there would be no monopolies). You think it's not a non-sequitur because your argument is that all monopolies are government created, but that definition is flawed. If I own the land and mineral rights to the only known deposit of Element B (here's where your strong property rights come in), and Element B has been shown to cure cancer, then I have a monopoly over the cure for cancer and can charge whatever I want. That's not government created, so under your definition that would not be a monopoly, right?

Once you expand your definition to accept other forms of monopoly beyond the type you describe, then you'll see why your argument is flawed.

You're right, they have nothing to do with strong property rights. So I ask you, what is wrong with doing any of that?

And why is this a problem? Why is someone willing to run at a loss bad for anyone? The consumer gets a better deal, and the producer willingly sets his price that low, so we can determine that the loss is acceptable to him. Where is the evil in this?

Why is that wrong? Why is it wrong for people to partner up? Why is it wrong to fix prices? Are you entitled to a particular price for a good? Should people be forced to sell you things? If so, why? Why do you have a right to a burger or gallon of gas at a price regardless of what the seller wants to ask for it?

If it is not wrong, then what is your problem with it?

But you have already said this is not wrong, so again, what is the problem with it?

Alright, let's try it this way. Monopolies are bad for markets, and ultimately bad for consumers. Any advantage gained by consumers in the area of lower prices is temporary and will be immediately negated once the competition is eliminated, because prices will be raised.

In many markets it takes months or years and immense capital expenditures to break into. What incentive would a company have to spend all of that money and time to break into a market, when they know that they will be forced out of business through uncompetitive practices?

Let's use the case of cellular providers since AT&T is about to buy T-Mobile. That will leave 3 major providers. Now let's say 5 years from now, they've bought Sprint and Verizon too, creating one company that controls 90% of the necessary infrastructure for the industry (the government will not allow that to happen, but under an anarcho-capitalist system it would naturally occur as industries mature). Now once they've completed their final acquisition, explain to me why they wouldn't raise their prices through the roof?

The Ancap position is that if they did raise their prices, other competitors would step in and create more competition - but how? Do you realize how expensive it would be to build all of the necessary infrastructure to be able to have a cellular network to compete? It would take years to do and billions of dollars to even attempt to compete with them. Then what? Then while you're trying to set prices in a manner to compete with them (and don't forget all the debt you acquired to build your business), they simply lower their prices to a level that you can't compete with. They leave their prices at that level until you go out of business, then they jack their prices back up. Meanwhile, you're financially ruined and they've sent a clear message to anyone else wishing to compete.

Once a dominant position is attained in a market, that business can and will do everything in it's power to limit competition. Limiting competition is bad for consumers in the end (even if there is a short term gain from an initial price war). That's why it's bad.

 

[lukep]

Let's use the case of cellular providers since AT&T is about to buy T-Mobile. That will leave 3 major providers. Now let's say 5 years from now, they've bought Sprint and Verizon too, creating one company that controls 90% of the necessary infrastructure for the industry (the government will not allow that to happen, but under an anarcho-capitalist system it would naturally occur as industries mature). Now once they've completed their final acquisition, explain to me why they wouldn't raise their prices through the roof?

The Ancap position is that if they did raise their prices, other competitors would step in and create more competition - but how? Do you realize how expensive it would be to build all of the necessary infrastructure to be able to have a cellular network to compete? It would take years to do and billions of dollars to even attempt to compete with them. Then what? Then while you're trying to set prices in a manner to compete with them (and don't forget all the debt you acquired to build your business), they simply lower their prices to a level that you can't compete with. They leave their prices at that level until you go out of business, then they jack their prices back up. Meanwhile, you're financially ruined and they've sent a clear message to anyone else wishing to compete.

This was a great example of the only problem I have with pure Capitalism, although I don't pretend to know the full theory of AnCap-ism.

Of course giving the GOV power to break up such monopolies causes huge other problems too, such as a market that is regulated to a point where companies don't feel they can 'win.' (And then go elsewhere to compete.)

I see two bad scenarios here... A huge monopoly in every industry on one side, and a Huge, overbearing gov on the other. Which is worse?

Balance is, like all other things in life, the key to moving forward.

There MUST be some regulation. -We obviously have too much of it now.

I personally would have broken up Ma Bell into companies that overlapped geography, but I'm still glad she was broken up.

 

[papajohn56]

Blaming the AT&T/T-Mobile potential monopoly on capitalism is a false equivocation. The FCC is the one who auctioned spectrum in the first place that allowed for specific companies to be larger than others.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Blaming the AT&T/T-Mobile potential monopoly on capitalism is a false equivocation. The FCC is the one who auctioned spectrum in the first place that allowed for specific companies to be larger than others.

It's just the most recent example, but competition would have resulted in specific companies being larger than other ones too (doesn't it always?). Without government interference it may have even happened a long time ago, but we don't know because the only instance of an economic system without government interference that we can point to is Somalia, and nobody wants to talk about how well that worked out.

The reality is that those with large pools of capital can take over markets and stifle competition and that's a fact that can not be ignored.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

Let's use the case of cellular providers since AT&T is about to buy T-Mobile. That will leave 3 major providers. Now let's say 5 years from now, they've bought Sprint and Verizon too, creating one company that controls 90% of the necessary infrastructure for the industry (the government will not allow that to happen, but under an anarcho-capitalist system it would naturally occur as industries mature). Now once they've completed their final acquisition, explain to me why they wouldn't raise their prices through the roof?

This is only assuming that cellular networks are the only means of mobile communication. Others will crop up and make them obsolete.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

This is only assuming that cellular networks are the only means of mobile communication. Others will crop up and make them obsolete.

Then AT&T (or whoever) spends their billions eliminating/buying them and their technology.

 

[Spelunking]

Then AT&T (or whoever) spends their billions eliminating/buying them and their technology.

If they buy them then I think those small competitors will consider that a victory on their part, considering they had to allow themselves to be bought out.

I don't think this is black and white at all. Do you disallow any regulation and allow an even greater chance that a company will sell products that could harm people (lead point, toys, etc)? Do you regulate so much that you end up with an Idocracy style Costco (I think it was Costco)?

Either way you're either killing people by giving them poison or by giving them what plants crave.

Big corporations work because people love familiarity. In an ever shrinking world, it gets harder and harder for businesses to compete because people want what they're used to, and most business isn't so revolutionary that people are forced to change.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

If they buy them then I think those small competitors will consider that a victory on their part, considering they had to allow themselves to be bought out.

Of course, but it's certainly not a victory for the consumer and that's the problem with completely unregulated capitalism.

 

[lukep]

Blaming the AT&T/T-Mobile potential monopoly on capitalism is a false equivocation. The FCC is the one who auctioned spectrum in the first place that allowed for specific companies to be larger than others.

Are you high again, PJ? Go back and read his scenario... The FCC's spectrum could only STOP a monopoly, if possible, not cause it.

 

[Lucidity]

I am not making an appeal to history. I am making a logical claim.

A logical claim as yet untested outside of books though, right? You have a theory for how humans could organize themselves on a large scale while being free from trespasses and aggression on the liberty of the individual, namely by dissolving governments. It's a good theory too, I've read some Rothbard and if I could trade his vision for what we have now I'd be all over it. The problem is, we have all of recorded history as a track record for the triumph of humans in figuring out ways to subvert and manipulate any system in place in order to gain advantage over others in ways that always result in the violation of the liberty of the individual.

I think the best you could say is that it's possible to temporarily increase the level of free enterprise by breaking down existing institutions of power, but supreme and lasting free markets are just something nice to aim for and cannot actually exist.

 

[guerilla]

A logical claim as yet untested outside of books though, right?

Again, I am not making an empirical statement. Tested or untested, that doesn't invalidate my claim.

You have a theory for how humans could organize themselves on a large scale while being free from trespasses and aggression on the liberty of the individual, namely by dissolving governments.\

Where did I say this?

The problem is, we have all of recorded history as a track record for the triumph of humans in figuring out ways to subvert and manipulate any system in place in order to gain advantage over others in ways that always result in the violation of the liberty of the individual.

This is neither here nor there to what I have written.

I think the best you could say is that it's possible to temporarily increase the level of free enterprise by breaking down existing institutions of power, but supreme and lasting free markets are just something nice to aim for and cannot actually exist.

Where did I claim that last bit?

If possible, I would like to discuss what I have written, not what you assume I am about.

 

[guerilla]

Then AT&T (or whoever) spends their billions eliminating/buying them and their technology.

Because there are no startups that grow into big companies, every single one without exception is swallowed up by the corporations which have been here for the last 10,000 years, amirite?

 

[Lucidity]

Again, I am not making an empirical statement. Tested or untested, that doesn't invalidate my claim.

I guess I'm not sure what your claim is then, I thought it was that anarcho capitalism is the way to avoid corruption such as corporate bailouts?

Where did I say this?


This is neither here nor there to what I have written.


Where did I claim that last bit?

If possible, I would like to discuss what I have written, not what you assume I am about.

Dude... I'm not really trying to win a formal debate here, can we drop the lawyer disclaimers? Once discussions get reduced to squabbles over what precisely was or was not said the actual discourse kind of gets lost I find.

You responded to my original comment directed at "anarcho capitalists" and identified yourself as such, so I assumed you took up anarcho capitalist positions. If I misrepresented them perhaps you can clarify how.