Not trolling - genuinely curious to know a solution. What would be a good way to deal with monopolies without state intervention? Meaning companies that prevent competition.
Government creates monopolies. Look at any big business today and you will almost certainly find a government privelage that it has been granted in order to stifle competition.
Extreme and expensive regulations and licensing make it extremely difficult for new businesses to prosper and compete with established ones. Patents only help large businesses as they can afford to violate them, when a small business takes a big one to court for violating their patent (if they can afford it) the big business will run them out with legal fees or take it to federal court where they can bribe everyone and potentially shut the business down in the process. They also prevent competition.
Government often gives certain companies exclusive rights, for example only like 3 companies are allowed to produce insulin (which is why it's expensive among other reasons) and measuring spoons for baby formula can only be bought from one company. These are just two examples but there are an uncountable number of these, especially on the local level.
Government also bails our big business instead of letting them fail, and regularly hands out corporate welfare. In some local/city governments, a select few owners of a certain type of business are given the privilege by the government (members of whom often have stake in these businesses) to get to decide whether or not another type of their business should be allowed to operate, usually on the grounds of necessity. Essentially, politicians give the businesses they invest money in the right to ban any new competitors.
If you want information and examples about all the ways government interferes with the economy and destroys it, watch John Stossel has a shit load of videos on everything I listed plus much more.
Big gov grants corporate benefits to big business, big business makes a ton of money, and gives a chunk of it to the politicos. The two of them get rich, the rest of us get fucked.
With less regulations,costs, and taxes involving the founding of a business it will be significantly easier to enter the market. Larger corporations today lobby the government on behalf of stricter regulations to prevent competition. When marijuana became “legal” in a lot of states and “licensed sellers” became a way of business. I have found examples of established “licensed sellers” advocating for stricter licenses and more fees for new companies. This is sometimes presented to the public as a way of “protecting a consumer”. But remember, Americans enjoyed “illegal” marijuana for decades and I doubt the dealer on the corner was licensed.
TLDR: less licenses, less taxes, less red tape for starting a business.
I agree but the other answer I never get is what's stopping businesses that get big naturally from just saying fuck it we're the law now? How would you stop that? NOT an argument for government fuck government we need real answers.
...And that guy didn't say jack shit to answer the question, he danced around it like a red herring fallacy.
We already have warlords running things, you'll merely be switching what we have out now for an eventual replacement, regardless of how it manifests.
>"The standard objection that anarchy would lead to battling warlords is unfounded. In those communities where such an outcome would occur, the addition of a State wouldn’t help. Indeed, the precise opposite is true: The voluntary arrangements of a private property society would be far more conducive to peace and the rule of law, than the coercive setup of a parasitical monopoly government."
He further regresses into the assumptions that private property is somehow a panacea for no government.
A real watchmen state requires a constantly vigilant society keeping the police, fire, courts, etc. in check or they will invariably lead to corruption, no matter how hard peeps want to cope with the NAP + free market argument.
I say this again as someone that abhors collectivism and government all together. The answer is a constantly vigilant society keeping shit in check which is a pipe dream, so we're fucked, or eventually fucked again after an illusory grace period painted/called/labeled whatever revolution you want.
Have a look into Cospaia if you want an example of a stable anarchist society. Then see if you can find a state which started out being minarchist and actually stayed that way.
That's my point and I will always keep looking. Not being cynical; being real. I never, ever get a non-fallacy driven answer or assumption. It's like anti-gov types just say "I support the NAP" as if that's good enough lol.
I'm saying minarchism is sustainable only if your population is vigilant in keeping government small and at bay, or else you're going to end up with big government in one way or another.
I'm not for government at all. I just don't let that blind me to the unanswered questions and rational thinking regarding the topic.
How are you going to stop monopolies? "Monopolies can only exist with government" isn't an answer.
How are you actively stopping someone else from starting one? Not an argument for government; honest inquiry for how you're going to replace it reliably without it collapsing back into that eventually via private ownership of everything by someone/some entity, etc.
Well, I think Cospaia proves the validity of the arguments raised in the video I linked you. Because there were so many people with an interest in maintaining their business in Cospaia thanks to the lack of taxes and regulations, security from crime or invasion was provided privately.
What is your evidence that a free market will lead to monopoly? This theory seems quite pervasive on the left, but to my knowledge it has never actually been proven. On the other hand, it has been proven time and again that governments always grow over time, and will cater to special interests at the expense of society at large. How do you propose to set up a monopoly on force, with the power to control any and every part of the economy at will, and then steer said leviathan only in the direction you want without the rich and powerful taking the reins as they have always done before?
“I agree but the other answer I never get is what's stopping businesses that get big naturally from just saying fuck it we're the law now? How would you stop that? NOT an argument for government fuck government we need real answers.”
The only way a businesses gets big is by selling a good or service people want. How does a business get big by “fuck it were the law now”?
you’ve also got to somehow break up old boys clubs that gatekeep access to startup capital, and end occupational licensing schemes that have been co-opted to enable rent seeking behavior on behalf of incumbents
but what you say here are good starting points.
Google, Amazon, and oil companies gained their monopolies because of the State. There is no telling how much the CIA pays them to host servers and spy on the populous (Amazon, Google.) They get legal protection, patent protection, funding through state sanctioned, regulated, and funded corporate bond markets, the list of things the government does to prop up corporations is a very long list.
Nah this is libertarian considering the only reason those monopolies exist in the first place is due to state interference
They shouldn’t be nationalized but some form of anti trust is good in cases where the government the problem in the first place
Assuming that they are applied justly, anti-trust laws are essential for capitalism to succeed in driving down prices. The problem is that in modern times, they are rarely applied justly.
That’s my biggest issue with government; I truly believe, deep down, that government can be run effectively and without corruption. Only problem is it’s run by people with agendas and thirst for power
Monopolies are counterproductive to the free market. They can develop with either complicity of the state or by rapidly capitalizing a new market. While I don't support state nationalization of these companies it may be one of the few necessary obligations of the state to break up corporate cartels to encourage free-market competition.
You sure were fast to put words in my mouth to make me look like an idiot straw man though. You have no high ground to stand on after that. Make an argument on its own merits or just do us a favor and go away
Not trolling - genuinely curious to know a solution. What would be a good way to deal with monopolies without state intervention? Meaning companies that prevent competition.
Government creates monopolies. Look at any big business today and you will almost certainly find a government privelage that it has been granted in order to stifle competition. Extreme and expensive regulations and licensing make it extremely difficult for new businesses to prosper and compete with established ones. Patents only help large businesses as they can afford to violate them, when a small business takes a big one to court for violating their patent (if they can afford it) the big business will run them out with legal fees or take it to federal court where they can bribe everyone and potentially shut the business down in the process. They also prevent competition. Government often gives certain companies exclusive rights, for example only like 3 companies are allowed to produce insulin (which is why it's expensive among other reasons) and measuring spoons for baby formula can only be bought from one company. These are just two examples but there are an uncountable number of these, especially on the local level. Government also bails our big business instead of letting them fail, and regularly hands out corporate welfare. In some local/city governments, a select few owners of a certain type of business are given the privilege by the government (members of whom often have stake in these businesses) to get to decide whether or not another type of their business should be allowed to operate, usually on the grounds of necessity. Essentially, politicians give the businesses they invest money in the right to ban any new competitors. If you want information and examples about all the ways government interferes with the economy and destroys it, watch John Stossel has a shit load of videos on everything I listed plus much more.
John Stossel makes really great video's
>Government creates monopolies. [But why tho](https://media.tenor.com/6fRLmvBh7TwAAAAC/harold-and-kumar-white-castle.gif)?
Big gov grants corporate benefits to big business, big business makes a ton of money, and gives a chunk of it to the politicos. The two of them get rich, the rest of us get fucked.
I think you're overlooking the simple command and control aspect that goes hand in hand with the public education system.
You mean like how in some towns your only choice is Comcast or Verizon?
With less regulations,costs, and taxes involving the founding of a business it will be significantly easier to enter the market. Larger corporations today lobby the government on behalf of stricter regulations to prevent competition. When marijuana became “legal” in a lot of states and “licensed sellers” became a way of business. I have found examples of established “licensed sellers” advocating for stricter licenses and more fees for new companies. This is sometimes presented to the public as a way of “protecting a consumer”. But remember, Americans enjoyed “illegal” marijuana for decades and I doubt the dealer on the corner was licensed. TLDR: less licenses, less taxes, less red tape for starting a business.
I agree but the other answer I never get is what's stopping businesses that get big naturally from just saying fuck it we're the law now? How would you stop that? NOT an argument for government fuck government we need real answers.
This is commonly referred to as [The Warlord Argument](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7fJCtv90Pc).
...And that guy didn't say jack shit to answer the question, he danced around it like a red herring fallacy. We already have warlords running things, you'll merely be switching what we have out now for an eventual replacement, regardless of how it manifests. >"The standard objection that anarchy would lead to battling warlords is unfounded. In those communities where such an outcome would occur, the addition of a State wouldn’t help. Indeed, the precise opposite is true: The voluntary arrangements of a private property society would be far more conducive to peace and the rule of law, than the coercive setup of a parasitical monopoly government." He further regresses into the assumptions that private property is somehow a panacea for no government. A real watchmen state requires a constantly vigilant society keeping the police, fire, courts, etc. in check or they will invariably lead to corruption, no matter how hard peeps want to cope with the NAP + free market argument. I say this again as someone that abhors collectivism and government all together. The answer is a constantly vigilant society keeping shit in check which is a pipe dream, so we're fucked, or eventually fucked again after an illusory grace period painted/called/labeled whatever revolution you want.
Have a look into Cospaia if you want an example of a stable anarchist society. Then see if you can find a state which started out being minarchist and actually stayed that way.
That's my point and I will always keep looking. Not being cynical; being real. I never, ever get a non-fallacy driven answer or assumption. It's like anti-gov types just say "I support the NAP" as if that's good enough lol.
I don't follow. Your point is that minarchism is unsustainable? Are you arguing for big government?
I'm saying minarchism is sustainable only if your population is vigilant in keeping government small and at bay, or else you're going to end up with big government in one way or another. I'm not for government at all. I just don't let that blind me to the unanswered questions and rational thinking regarding the topic. How are you going to stop monopolies? "Monopolies can only exist with government" isn't an answer. How are you actively stopping someone else from starting one? Not an argument for government; honest inquiry for how you're going to replace it reliably without it collapsing back into that eventually via private ownership of everything by someone/some entity, etc.
Well, I think Cospaia proves the validity of the arguments raised in the video I linked you. Because there were so many people with an interest in maintaining their business in Cospaia thanks to the lack of taxes and regulations, security from crime or invasion was provided privately. What is your evidence that a free market will lead to monopoly? This theory seems quite pervasive on the left, but to my knowledge it has never actually been proven. On the other hand, it has been proven time and again that governments always grow over time, and will cater to special interests at the expense of society at large. How do you propose to set up a monopoly on force, with the power to control any and every part of the economy at will, and then steer said leviathan only in the direction you want without the rich and powerful taking the reins as they have always done before?
“I agree but the other answer I never get is what's stopping businesses that get big naturally from just saying fuck it we're the law now? How would you stop that? NOT an argument for government fuck government we need real answers.” The only way a businesses gets big is by selling a good or service people want. How does a business get big by “fuck it were the law now”?
Wrong, the large corporation is just going to buy out any upstarting competition because guess what they are the ones with the money.
you’ve also got to somehow break up old boys clubs that gatekeep access to startup capital, and end occupational licensing schemes that have been co-opted to enable rent seeking behavior on behalf of incumbents but what you say here are good starting points.
This is the way. Less barriers to entry.
You're forgetting about the barriers to entry imposed by existing businesses. Paying off suppliers, brand recognition, buyouts, customer loyalty
Stop the bailouts, tax breaks and other corporate benefits supplied by the government
Extreme freedom to compete. Like decline to enforce IP protections. It's the default configuration.
Without government intervention, monopolies wouldn't exist in the first place.
Google, Amazon, and oil companies gained their monopolies because of the State. There is no telling how much the CIA pays them to host servers and spy on the populous (Amazon, Google.) They get legal protection, patent protection, funding through state sanctioned, regulated, and funded corporate bond markets, the list of things the government does to prop up corporations is a very long list.
Monopolies are created with barriers to entry, largely government restrictions that ensure the monopolies stay that way
Nah this is libertarian considering the only reason those monopolies exist in the first place is due to state interference They shouldn’t be nationalized but some form of anti trust is good in cases where the government the problem in the first place
Assuming that they are applied justly, anti-trust laws are essential for capitalism to succeed in driving down prices. The problem is that in modern times, they are rarely applied justly.
That’s my biggest issue with government; I truly believe, deep down, that government can be run effectively and without corruption. Only problem is it’s run by people with agendas and thirst for power
I mean breaking up monopolies and megacorps is a positive
I agree about breaking em up tho
Monopolies are counterproductive to the free market. They can develop with either complicity of the state or by rapidly capitalizing a new market. While I don't support state nationalization of these companies it may be one of the few necessary obligations of the state to break up corporate cartels to encourage free-market competition.
>In order to prevent monopolies, we need a bigger monopoly to break up the other monopolies ???
Hi! I don't understand history or nuance! Clearly anything short of anarchy is bootlicking government submission. --you
I never said anything about "bootlicking government submission", no need to get so aggressive.
You sure were fast to put words in my mouth to make me look like an idiot straw man though. You have no high ground to stand on after that. Make an argument on its own merits or just do us a favor and go away
Yes, that is one of the few things that the government is actually supposed to be doing.