How would a free market, without antitrust laws, deal with things like mergers, monopolies, cartels, etc...

How would a free market, without antitrust laws, deal with things like mergers, monopolies, cartels, etc.? Should they just be allowed to happen?

>monopolies and cartels

The NAP deals with that

If everyone has guns mergers, monopolies, cartels will be dealt with by the masses.

What do they do?

Biometric chip that broadcasts your vitals to your doctor so he can prescribe you more cocaine.

It doesn't lol

Cronyism is the cherry of capitalism, it should never be allowed at a corporate level.

this is making the assumption the populace gives a fuck

corporations are good at masking their wrongdoings to the public, especially in america

I guess this is the heart of what I'm getting at. I generally like capitalism and generally like a free market, but this seems to be where they fail together.

Capitalism only favors the first come first servers.

Everyone else gets welfare.

bump

but it would take very little for a small group to liberate a price gouging store in a world that allowed it.

How many men would it take to take over a wal-mart? You think min wagers are gonna defend that place?

Monopolies and cartels don't happen in a free market. They only happen with government backing. Antitrust laws are worthless for that reason, unless you have a powerful political enemy.

Mergers are none of your business.

...

In a true free market when a company gets too big and tries to gouge prices a competitor will always come to compete.

what about the roads who will pay for them. BTFOBTFOBTFO

>muh invisible hand

Fuck I need to stop coming here. First thing I thought of looking at that was the happy merchant.

Couldn't you also just say the government has infiltrated the private sector?

>
>Couldn't you also just say the government has infiltrated the private sector?

No, because that wouldn't fit the narrative. You are especially not allowed to point at the government officers who sold their influence in the first place.

not really, business money drives the government, the lobbyists, and the electoral machine
The people making the decisions are required by their job to maximize profits for the company, excluding almost all other concerns.
It's not because they are evil, they are acting in their own self-interest.
They will not stop unless they have penalties, which are more costly than the gains they achieve from their actions

So wait, you're saying that I'm allowed to round up my friends and take over a walmart with weapons because them forming a monopoly and raising the price is a violation of NAP?

Large monopolies require regulation to function. The larger the company, the less efficient it becomes. In a society without government enforced monopolies these companies inevitably restructure or die due to newer, nimbler competition.

Obviously, just like how the NAP would end all wars and violence.

yeah, just like all those independent cable TV companies that are challenging Comcast and Time Warner
....oh wait...

...

>not really, business money drives the government, the lobbyists, and the electoral machine
But politicians are providing the incentive for them to even do that.
>It's not because they are evil, they are acting in their own self-interest.
>They will not stop unless they have penalties, which are more costly than the gains they achieve from their actions
But won't more penalties just push a corporation - through acting in self-interest - to find different ways of cheating the system to retain profits?

>They will not stop unless they have penalties, which are more costly than the gains they achieve from their actions
that is not only a terrific argument AGAINST the state, but your lack of faith for the non taxing entities to do a much better job of penalties than the state, tells me you hate trump and america

lol.

It requires expensive licensing by THE GOVERNMENT in order to broadcast through the airwaves. That's why they're are no small competition businesses.

yes, they will absolutely try to rig the game
that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to close the loopholes and laws that encourage corruption
I trust neither govt or business, but at least with govt, I can have SOME say in the way things are done.
I have no say in the way Monsanto does its business, other than financial support/boycott, or controlling interest of the company.

and who lobbied to rig the game in their favor?
It cuts both ways.

Capitalism requires contract law and ways to enforce that law. It also requires laws that make it stable and safe.. any society does.

>capitalism
>stable
Is this even possible?

The ones that use the govt to prevent competition? Same ones going out of business from new alt news sources? The ones now using govt to put these sources out of business?

It does cut both ways, but boil it down to this:
Business should be for self-interest. Government should be in the interest of the people. The latter is more implicated in this scheme.

Lobbied whom? The government.
No government, no one to force you to subsidize them.

No, but it would be more stable than anarchy.

>what is polycentric law and DROs

false dichotomy
those are not the only two options
No government, no one to stop corruption at all
Why can't business work for public interest as well? Or at least for local interest of the people who work there, instead of the fatcats at the top?

>Why can't business work for public interest as well?
That's not what business is necessarily (key word) about. Businesses shouldn't be held accountable for governing the people, the government should.
That being said, they can and do work for public interest if it somehow also serves them. They need to ingratiate with the public that buys from them, after all. It's essential they don't just blindly fuck over their consumers.

>being reasonable on /pol
fucking normie

Are you having a tough time, amigo?

You are retarded. First off its moronic the govt stops corruption. If large organizations are inherently going to be corrupt then the govt will be corrupt too. Diff between govt and business and govt are sanctioned violence. Given the violent nature of govt, this means that sociopaths are going to be attracted more than to business which his inherently VOLUNTARY by nature.

Monopolies, government and corporations always eventually collapse, but it takes a long time, there's nothing you can really do, fighting against nature is a waste of time, we can't prevent monopolies from forming.

>sociopaths are going to be attracted more than to business
You sure about that, compadre?

>what is trustbusting
>who is Teddy Fucking Roosevelt

He's long dead and the power vacuum has been filled.

>Literally using a movie from a propaganda director.

It doesn't even make sense. You think the power-tripping senator above the law is a meme? You think businesses aren't fundamentally based on getting people to cooperate voluntarily?

Sorry you're such a failure that you hate business because they see you as the loser you are and thus see the government positively because you're a parasite.

>tfw you will probably have another based Roosevelt figure to lead your nation
>tfw they are still trying to drill in the national parks, god's own country
>tfw you have just about lost all faith in govt, but it's better than the inherent heartlessness of business, which is expected to incur endless and ever-expanding growth
>based on getting people to cooperate voluntarily?
in a perfect world, yes....in reality businesses use their position to leverage their own interests, to the detriment of the rest of us
Example:walmart - they produce nothing, they just exchange.....they are...dare i say it....MERCHANTS

The population would foribly destroy a company because it's too successful?

Literal nigger tier you baboon.

This is what all libertards say.
>competition won't allow for monopolies DURRRR
The market has always been free in every corner of the world. And if you don't get what that means, you're retarded.

What's to stop the winning competition using every underhanded tactics to undermine competition? This is what you libertards don't understand. We ARE living in a 100% free market, in that, competition use whatever fuckin mean necessary to win. Free market is social Darwinism at its finest. Just like how competition of today don't give a fuck about
>MUH NAP
competition in a free market won't either.

What's gonna stop a winning corporation to stomp on these 'nimble, newer' competition with sheer power that money will afford them to? If they can't do it through laws, they'll do it through some other subversive means, just like how it's been done since the dawn of time. I've yet to see a libertard properly address the inevitable march toward power consolidation in a free market.

Corporations would not be considered legal persons which would fix most of that shit

I can tell you're biased against business. Again, likely because you're a loser. People who hate business are those who can't succeed because they have no marketable skills.

Walmart succeeds because people like its business model. Cheap stuff in a centralized location. If you think that model is bad why don't you make your own business to compete?

True, that would be a step in the right direction.

I'm not sure how you're defining "cartel", but can you please tell us the negatives of the things you listed?

>The market has always been free in every corner of the world
No, it hasn't. It's closed and governments act like cartels. The internet was the closest to unfettered free market and it is amazing.

>What's to stop the winning competition using every underhanded tactics to undermine competition?

What's to stop businesses from paying politicians through "campaign contributions" to create legislation to undermine competition?

Are you seriously stupid kid.

I guess what I mean is the conglomeration of businesses that ends up consolidating "too much power" in one entity - like mergers that even Trump despises. Maybe I should have avoided mentioning cartels.
I don't really know a lot about this, which is why I made the thread. I'm curious about whether or not these are even bad things, and if they're bad, how they would be disallowed in a free market without the law intervening.

See
>And if you don't get what that means, you're retarded.
There is no external force that's causing people, time and time again, to use competitive advantage to weed out competition. Whether that competitive advantage is using the state or the formation of cartels. Are you seriously stupid kid that you don't get what I mean by
>the market has always been free in every corner of the world.

>What's to stop businesses from paying politicians through "campaign contributions" to create legislation to undermine competition?

You just proved my point you dumb fuck. The same drive that causes corporations to use the state (competitive advantage) to weed out competition is also present in a free market.

Just because you libertards think people will automatically start following
>MUH NAP
just because the power of state is gone is the most retarded shit i've ever heard, and no libertards addresses this competently.

Again, I ask you, what's to stop businesses from using competitive advantage? Competition doesn't give a fuck about NAP, any more than a lion cares about the antelope it's going to kill. When faced with survival, an organism will do anything necessary to survive.

If businesses cannot use violence to prevent competition then monopolies are impossible. You would also need to provide a solid argument that mammoth corporations could even survive without government stopping competition. Even in a crony capitalist society where corporations can pay the government to stop competition, large corporations go out of business because they're too inefficient.

Fair enough. I'm pretty much siding with you, just playing devil's advocate. It seems as though corrupt cronyism mostly arises out of heavy government protection or regulatory pressure that kills their gainz and forces them to adapt.

>There is no external force that's causing people, time and time again, to use competitive advantage to weed out competition

There is nothing wrong with being more efficient than your competition.

> Whether that competitive advantage is using the state or the formation of cartels

You're a moron if you don't see the government itself is the root problem. It's not competitive advantage to metaphorically use thugs to break the windows of the competition, even if it's "legal" to do so. Government enables this behavior.

>The same drive that causes corporations to use the state (competitive advantage) to weed out competition is also present in a free market.

The market isn't free. Government regulates everything about the market today. Use fucking concepts correctly, thanks.

>no libertards addresses this competently.

I can tell you don't have the IQ to even grasp the concepts you're talking about. I can pretty effectively guess that you're a low quality individual to boot because no successful person has the worldview you have. You're a worm and no one likes you.

Sorry you have autism and it makes you non-competitive.

Jesus Christ you're fuckin dumb. You obviously don't get what I mean by the market has been, was, and is always free. Free, as in there is nothing stopping people from creating a free market of honest competition, but never does it last long. There are ALWAYS power consolidation that uses non-honest means to win competition. Government is a TOOL to do so.

>It's not competitive advantage to metaphorically use thugs to break the windows of the competition, even if it's "legal" to do so. Government enables this behavior.

'Competitive advantage' is ANY advantage a competing force will use against another. It does not just end at government you idiot, and legality or morality will prevent nothing in the face of winning said competition in the framework of survival.

You're just making up your own definitions.

Read up on game theory of competition and differential advantage.

This
>MUH INVISIBLE HAND OF FREE MARKET HURRRR
has been studied, debunked, and shat on all over many, many times.

My point is that you're the only one arguing from the perspective of game theory, which gives you a different set of definitions than what others are using right now.

How can you have a knowledgeable discussion on the market without having studied game theory?

Can be rewritten to
>How could a free market, deal with the propensity for power consolidations?

protips: it doesn't

If you studied game theory and the likes, you'd know exactly why libertard's version of free market will never work. They view government as the root, while a person like me is saying the government is a tool/symptom of the problem.