How are monopolies addressed by anarcho-capitalism?

How are monopolies addressed by anarcho-capitalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4
mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Violently deal with them.

The monopoly violated the NAP by encroaching on your right to choose your services or products.

...

Competition. If you can undercut them you win.

The free market will fix it. Anyone who says otherwise is literally Stalin and should be thrown from a helicopter.

monopolies can form currently because corporations just pay politicians to put non-competition regulations in place, giving them cheeky cunt personhood laws to hide behind and literally give them welfare, in glorious ancapistan it'd be a lot easier to set up competition if one company was getting too big

Micro-businesses team upon the big business like agar.io

you mean a trust?

Yes but without rules against strangling competition, they can strangle competition. They can 'bundle', saying, unless you buy only our stuff we won't sell you /any/, you have to choose.
Or they can just sell below cost, knowing that with their accumulated capital they'll outlast the upstart trying to match prices, then re-raise their prices once the competitor dies.

...

Monopolies only exsist because of the state

I'm anarchy capitalism there is no copyright or patent so nothing can prevent other people from doing the same thing better

Based Sup Forumslack

In the event that those micro-businesses do win then they'll just merge into another monopoly which doesn't solve the problem of monopolies.

stop posting from my IP you nigger

"My private army is occupying this copper mine, which is the only copper mine connected to our railway system. There is not another copper mine around for hundreds of miles."

> muh copyright

Owning a mine is not a monopoly you communist wtf are you talking about

when the first post is the only correct post...

What if people are too lazy to uphold the NAP?

What stops a warlord scenario?

You ignored the part where he specifies that the mine is the only copper producing mine in a large enough radius which would make whoever owns it have a monopoly on copper for that area. It's retarded to think that patents and copyright are bad when those are literally intended to protect your private property.

I'm obviously talking about how there can definitely be monopolies even without copyright law, you dense amerifat.

A warlord occupies the only source of [insert natural resource here] around, so he controls not only the trade in said resource, but also the construction and production of any derived infrastructure and products (power cables, railroads, whatever). This is a monopoly in every sense of the word.

Your lack of patent and copyright law will surely save you.

They aren't.

It's almost as if anarcho-capitalism is a non-dialectic philosophy for children.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't that leave every business open to violence since if their prices are higher than someone can afford they're violating that person's right to choose products and services?

I do realise that's absurd, but where's the line?

>nothing can prevent other people from doing the same thing better
Economies of scale.

Competitors never "die". When one competitor dissapears a new one is born.
And what the hell do you mean with that they can just lower their prizes to kill competition? So a company lowering prizes is now a bad thing for the consumers? The customer doesn't give a shit about who they are buying from, they just want a product that is as good and as cheap as possible.

Remember that the open and free market doesn't exist so that company owners can get as rich as possible. They exist so that the consumers can get as good products as possible.

or like ACE hardware

>No mine for a long way
>mine company charges a lot for ore
>ship in ore from a far off mine
>undercut mine owner

>profit

In an anarchy capitalist system violence is still not allowed outside of self defense

>what if an evil maniac owned everything

What you are talking about that wouldn't be an anarcho-capitalist system by definition that's like some form of neo-feudalism

>outcompeting is preventing

lol get Gud

Do you know what scenario arises when you outcompete everyone and they withdraw from the industry?
(Hint, there's one - i.e. mono - business in the industry...)

>the line
FUCKING STATIST! LINES ARE FOR KEKS. NAP IS ABSOLUTE!

Based on what I've seen of markets and economics that is actually impossible

Monopolies cannot survive for very long in a truly free market.
youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4

Why do ancaps think any random guy could outcompete a megacorp monopoly that mass produces products cheaper and faster than the little guy ever could?

You do realise that people can trade products from hundreds of miles away? If a company owns the copper mine it doesn't mean it has a monopoly and it can do whatever it wants. A foreign company can open up a new shop importing copper there and then selling it to the locals. The local company will have to compete in order to survive. If they decide to impose high prices on copper then the locals will simply buy it from some one else.

If they're sold cheap and fast what's the problem?

You are violating the NAP by preventing me from exercising my right to contract and form a monopoly

It's impossible for a monopoly to appear in a free market

It doesn't matter. The richest 1% just fucking hoarde all the cash leaving everyone else to just starve to death. We're all doomed. Face it, capitalism just doesn't work. Nothing works! Humans are shit.

They could introduce a basic income to keep this zombie capitalism farce carry on for a short while longer. And just inflate the currency indefinitely.

I think the problem is that as soon as that random guy gives up and closes shop, which is very fast, the monopoly jacks up the prices again.

This.

/thread

...

not if you know anything about late 1800s US. it was thanks to the state trust-busting and setting limits to the portion of a market a business can control that the economy is the way it is now

Or at least, it's impossible for an abusive monopoly to appear. It may so happen that a single company provides all of a given good or service, but the threat of competition will still force it to maintain reasonable prices and value.

There's also the matter of substitute: if the lightbulb monopoly charges an exorbitant rate, people will make an effort to use fewer lightbulbs. They might even switch back to candles if the price remains high.

Monopolies are a product of the state (a monopoly of force and violence). As there is always consumer demand for a better product, whoever supplies a better product will naturally sell better. Since companies rely on consumers for income, they have to supply a product that the consumers want to buy.

>what are trusts
>doesn't address driving out competition by undercutting prices

>gommunism is bad because government monopolies stifle innovation and competition
>corporate monopolies are okay because even though they do the same shit I get cheap products

Really activates my almonds.

/thread/

To , and whoever else mentions muh warlords:
mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

>threat of competition
There is no threat when you can literally outlast any competition that arises by temporarily undercutting until the other business joins you or dies out.

Those were supported by government you absolute mong

America wasn't ancap in the 1800's at all

None of these explanations have really been adequate, in my view. Yes, competition. Yes, monopolies are established by the state. What anarcho-capitalist academics grapple with foremost is the difficultly in defining a monopoly in the first place. A monopoly on what? Selling hoagie's on this particular corner in this particular city? Or is a monopoly one company owning a certain percentage of some arbitrarily defined industry? I certainly have a monopoly on the provision of my labor.

The point is that it's easy to call something a monopoly, depending on how you define it. Then, it's easy to justify government intervention by merely fitting the definition to the agenda. Government established monopolies, such as utilities, seem to be perfectly acceptable, whereas other arbitrarily defined monopolies are not. It's always arbitrary and it's always political.

Whatever the case, lets pretend we are in the mythical world of Ancapistan. How are monopolies prevented? The simple answer is that as a market moves towards monopoly the excess returns associated with that monopoly and so does the incentive to break that monopoly. Suppose a company controls the entire market for the provision of seeds to farmers (Monsanto). There's no company that could possibly enter this space and compete with them, right? Wrong. A major pharmaceutical company (Bayer) can easily maneuver themselves into this space, begin developing GMO seeds, and start competing with Monsanto.

The greater the monopoly a firm establishes, the higher the barrier of entry to the industry. However, simultaneously, the gains from breaking down that barrier increase. There's always someone else, there's never a pure monopoly, and there's never a way to maintain that monopoly without government intervention. That simple.

It will end in monopolies. The Pareto Principle is undefeated

>deals with
>lazy lolbergturdians
They wash their own hands. Never the feet of anybody else
>elect me because this place is evil and garbage
K

This is meme-history. I know it too: every high school student gets the "robbber barons, boo!" lesson as a filler between Reconstruction and the World Wars. But the truth is always more complicated.

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, industry was expanding rapidly in the US, but it was all pretty new stuff. Any time something new developed, whoever figured things out first has a huge head start. The 'robber barons' all made great business decisions that let them expand their business rapidly, but there isn't any reason to assume their advantage would have been long-lasting or detrimental to consumers.

Instead of waiting for that to happen, the government (wanting to score easy political points) split the companies up.

Ancaps argue, against all evidence, that monopolies are impossible without the state granting them.

There is no such thing as outlasting the competition. As soon as one start-up fails, investors start a new one. In fact, if the first competitor looked enticing to investors, the second one will look even better, because now the monopoly has lost money on their low prices and this has less reserved capital to waste on the next attempt.

that is not what happened though. trusts were companies that teamed up for the purpose of exerting a monopoly. they didn't get a monopoly simply from "great business decisions that let them expand their business rapidly" allowing them to get ahead of competition. this is only true in the sense that creating a trust was the "great business decision" that got them ahead of the competition. what absolute bullshit you're pulling to simply assume that these monopolies would simply naturally lose hold over time if the government had never intervened.

so you're saying that tons of investors are willing to repeatedly throw out their money at start ups they know will fail until they eventually wear down the company exerting a monopoly? they would much more easily make money investing in the safe, stable, already established monopoly.

Timing is of key importance, though.
We'll all be in coffins before the market for intercontinental airliners stops being an Airbus/Boeing oligopoly. (And the trend has actually been getting worse, since Lockheed pulled out when the L1011 bombed and McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing.)

That's a very specific case, but it's useful to keep in mind that it exists. Few would invest in a Embraer alternative (company with fast passenger jet experience, but relegated to the commuter segment of the market.) airliner of similar scope, even though the technology is there. While both sides (Airbus and Boeing) plead state intervention is helping the other, it's unlikely the scenario would be much different elsewhere. (It could of course always be *more* lopsided, since Airbus was partially a European political project. Take them out of the equation and the result is a Boeing monopoly on intercontinental airliners...)

ancap is retarded, minarchism is the way to go