LIBERTARIANISM

This seems to be the best form of government, but how do you prevent monopolies?

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/TrumInTheNorth/status/899793901724336130
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Progressive corporate taxation, small business grants, criminalise anti-disruption tactics, end of affirmative action.

Monopolies only exist in niche businesses, dangerous businesses and outright subjugation from large corporations.

Hm, how do statists prevent monopolies ?
Right, they cant and no one can but we take their political power to force you to buy their products. You can voluntary buy things from another company if the other fucks with you.

Also dont forget that the state is the biggest monopoly of them all.

Pure ancap would see monopolization as violating the NAP and probably result in the monopoly being forcefully disassembled.

Moderate libertarianism would allow some governmental regulation to prevent monopolies.

Monopolies are impossible without state coercion. At least not for a significant time.

...

This. Free competition will avoid monopolies.

Napoleon had it about right, I think. The ideals of the French Revolution were good, but sometimes it is necessary to suspend liberty to preserve liberty. Monopolies can arise that need to be dealt with, but directly by a Teddy Roosevelt-esque figure who has the public mandate to lead. My real political beliefs are this: Dennis Kucinich represents the more optimistic and idealistic side of my nature, Ron Paul represents the more realistic aspect.

It's not an accident that they were friends; I think Trump's idea of an Australia like healthcare system where we have a just good enough single payer option alongside a private system that preserves freedom of choice is a humane and viable way forward. The moral state of America is such that I don't believe we can rely on religious charity any longer in the way that Ron Paul thinks we can, some type of public option has to exist that isn't influenced by market forces. But, getting rid of a free market system and submitting your health totally to the state is the definition of insanity.

As long as we can make sure litigation from other companies isn't a barrier to entry.

Imagine if Henry Ford had patented the steering wheel?

That's not too hard. Don't subsidize them.
>people bitch about high fructose corn syrup
>they blame capitalism
>try to explain the concept of governmental subsidization
>it's like speaking fucking hieroglyphics
Granted larger groups are going to happen as long as they provide good services and goods but that's just the nature of the beast. Also, don't buy the ancap meme of zero government. Pic related.

All monopolies are state companies or companies helped by the state. Free market may result in a monopoly of the monopoly is a company that's far better than any competition. Otherwise, a company won't be able to survive all competition
Plus, the government IS a monopoly

We kind of have that now with software patents, look at the mileage M$ got out of their patent on the Windows button.

Exactly. Copyright, trademark, etc etc, is a barrier to entry.

Theres no patents without the state

You don't. Monopolies are a good thing that naturally form out of the free market. If you try to prevent companies from growing you deserve a helicopter ride.

monopolies are impossible in the free market with free competition.

>best form of government
why do libertarians have their head so far into their ass

There are no courthouses either. I'm not one for removing the state, just making it smaller.

Great argument kid.

Theres still something for dispute resolution

Can be newspapers, or insurance penalties, boycotts. Courthouses can still exists as well

It isn't a form of government, it's an ideology of laziness and lack of responsibility; it's about weaponizing the natural selfishness of individuals against the people and society.

>You can voluntary buy things from another company if the other fucks with you.
Ancap retard demonstrating he doesn't understand what a monopoly is.

It wouldn't violate the NAP at all, as long as they've monopolized through the market "naturally", i.e. without artificially removing competition, i.e. through force/sabotage/etc.

Patently false

At least this ancap is honest about his psychopathic jewry.

With free trade and a completely free market for maximum possible amount of competition, monopolies are highly unlikely.

The opposite is true.
Your notion of a "completely free market" is an oxymoron. The only way you can guarantee the possibility for viable competition is through
regulation of the market.

Less regulation = easier to get into market

Free trade = easier for foreign countries to get into market

More in market = more competition

>Patently false
Well I guess you win then

>can't read
>capitalism is so lazy

I like Ron Paul, but he is over the hill and so is libertarianism. Libertarianism failed when libertarians stopped saying "Don't tread on me", and started parroting “NAP! NAP!" Libertarians were suppose to fight back and start sniping commies. Instead all they did was start blathering on about their holy NAP and turned into cowardly pacifist anarchists. Libertarians blew it. It’s time for another Pinochet.

>Less regulation = easier to get into market
You're talking about regulations on individual businesses, not regulation of the market itself.

>Free trade = easier for foreign countries to get into market
True. But is that supposed to be a good thing?

More in market = more competition
Without regulation, the amount of room there is for people to join the market is entirely at the mercy of the market's fluctuations.

see >says others can't read
>thinks I was calling capitalism lazy, not libertarianism

Night Watchman form of Gov't is the best most realistic we could hope for in a human society.

also, competition and human self-interest are the best protectors against a monopoly
>if a monopoly serves everyone's interests and is great, then what's the problem with it?
>the moment a monopoly tries to leverage its position to take advantage of people, others will pop up to take business away from it
a monopoly is only a problem when gov't is there with its laws to protect it from competition or force people to deal with it even when they'd rather go somewhere else

You know, the same could be said about socialism and communism. There's a stigma attached to one word, so since the other word is connected to it, however vague, it's seen in a negative light.

If a population can remain conscious enough of a night watchman state to keep it from expanding its power, it can be conscious of heavily-centralized states as well.

>others will pop up to take business away from it
Why?
You assume that because the monopoly is taking advantage of people, it means those people don't want to do business with it anymore. What's the basis for that?

Yes, regulations on businesses.

Yes, it is in the best interest of the consumer that the maximum amount of competition exists. Where the product is made is totally irrelevant.

I may be missing your third point. Are you saying that unprofitable markets have low competition due to less incentive for entering and competing in that market? Good, let that market die. It's clearly not necessary.

Ok now explain how Libertarianism makes people lazy etc. without bringing in capitalism

Alright good that you cleared it up for me.
Libertarianism is so selfish and Lazy all people just cry out for welfare for them and their friends (be it their aryan or their niggerfriends) an they want the state to control everything and what they like the most is this collectivism where one can completely believe that hes doing it for the greater good (some people fall for this when they have nothing else in their live so they want to fight for their racial/working class collectiv to bring sense in his life instead of just doing his race/class a favor and end his sad meaningless life)

There are 3 main ways monopolies form:

1) A company is so effective at selling a product or service that all other competition loses and the only way for them to keep new businesses from over taking them is to keep providing the best services.

2) Government enforced monopolies like utilities. Gov'ts decide it is best for there to only be one provider of a service and gov't shuts out all other competition.

3) A hybrid of 1 and 2 where a company starts out with a great business plan, out competes everyone then when they are at the top they use gov't influence to increase regulations that make it next to impossible for a small startup to enter the industry, driving out competition.

With a libertarian gov't scenarios 2 and 3 are eliminated because the gov't doesn't have the power to enforce a monopoly in private industry.

1 isn't necessarily a problem because the only way for the monopoly to not get threatened by upstarts is for them to continue to provide a product and service that the customers want. The minute they start pissing of consumers there will be a door open for a new challenger.

Also remember libertarianism is not anCap. If you can envision a scenario where a company had a monopoly and was positioned in such a way that no one would ever be able to compete ever, the gov't could then step it to break up the monopoly.

TL'DR Small gov't isnt no gov't

the first guy to monopolize the use of force is your new fascist government

>regulations on businesses
Ok, what do you mean then? What regulations make it harder to get into a market?

>best interest of the consumer that the maximum amount of competition exists.
I admit this, this is the core impasse between our ideologies. "Consumers" and "people" are different things, and have different interests; You believe a society can be comprised of consumers and be successful as long as their interests as consumers are met.

My third point is that a market is finite in size. There's only so many people spending money, and they only possess so much money to spend.
You say more people entering the market means more competition, and my point is that without regulations, the amount of people who CAN enter the market to create that competition is entirely dependent on the free market fluctuations.
>let that market die
Let thousands of people be plunged into poverty, displaced, homeless, etc. instead of taking measures to MAKE that market profitable.
>It's clearly not necessary.
Civilization is necessary.

You think these halfwits can comprehend any type of dispute resolution without guns clubs or coercion?

the government creates monopolies. it would be impossible to have a monopoly in a free market.

Bitch, read. It doesn't "make" people lazy, it is itself an ideology of laziness.

You shirk all responsibility to your race and society, in favor of a psychopathic hyper-individualism where you can look at a child being raped in an alley and say you have no moral imperative to intervene, since "they are not entitled to my labor! heheh"

You are parasites who want to enjoy everything that the nations and societies built for you, without being held accountable to its continued maintenance and survival.

You're lower than insects.

But what if you have a type 1 scenario like you described, and a corp buys/rents all the real estate available in the area, making it impossible for competition to form? Now they're free to give shitty service (since they gotta hike their prices from buying so much land) and small gov means small tax so they could keep it forever

>be successful private security firm in ancapistan
>buy out competitors until you have a majority market share
>defeat coalition of competing firms in all out war
>all other security firms are too far away or see no profit in interfering
>have only standing army in ancapistan
>be ancap
>get thrown out of helicopter for being anti-government anarchist

So obviously monopolies can't happen in the theory, but when it hits the pavement you'll all agree it's warped and all sorts of oddities happen. So how to you stop those oddities from creating what appears to be monopolies?

What if, let's say, a guy owns a gold mine and it's only gold mine in existence (there is no gold anywhere else). What do?

Govt would step in, likely selling off parts of the corp's real estate to subsidize upstarts.
Ancap response is that all the people living there would "move somewhere else"

A regulation such as a minimum wage hurts small business that cannot afford automation. It doesn't harm big businesses as they have the money to invest in automation. This leaves the big businesses and lowers competition.

Anyone who buys things is a consumer in a capitalist society. No change in interests.

If a market is too small (not profitable) to allow for competition, the lack of demand indicates that it's dying. No need to artificially sustain it through government intervention.

Look, I know it seems uncaring to let someone's job be made null and cause loss of employment. But when government subsidizes and artificially sustains that market, are not the people paying for it? Don't you consider their interests?

And if someone goes into poverty because he lost his job, then do something about it. This is not a society with no sympathy or charity.

We should be glad that the horse and buggy market was allowed to die with the rise of automobiles. Imagine if the government prohibited all car building because it would kill the jobs of the buggy manufacturers.

Old and useless businesses have gone and civilization has moved on, all to the benefit of the consumer.

You don't, you become the monopoly.

A small business that cannot afford to pay employees a livable wage isn't going to compete with a big business that's investing in automation in the first place.
The core of the issue here was that the big business had an advantage, in that they have existed for longer and thus had more resources available.
Without any regulation, they are allowed to expand this advantage as much as they like, until the point where they own all of the means of production, all of the means of distribution, all of the means of exchange, so on and so forth.
What competition will there be then? Absolutely none.
Thus, the only way to ensure that competition is possible is to regulate.

>Anyone who buys things is a consumer in a capitalist society. No change in interests.
It's every change in interests. You said it yourself. As a consumer, what benefits them is being able to continue consuming, and being able to consume things they want more than what they're already consuming.

This is not what the interests of people are.
The interest of people is a safe, stable, and healthy society.
Case in point:
>when government subsidizes and artificially sustains that market, are not the people paying for it? Don't you consider their interests?
Yes, because their interests are for that market to be not only sustained, but improved.

>This is not a society with no sympathy or charity.
The model this society is built on dictates that you prioritize your immediate and individual financial interests over all else. Otherwise you will be outcompeted by the person who does.

As for the horse and buggy vs cars, that's my point again. It was to the benefit of the consumer that cars be introduced to the economy so they can expand their range of consumption.
This doesn't mean it's in the interests of people.

libertarian > ancap

Addressing this thread. My perception of what other people think monopolies are has come into doubt. I've always heard the argument "Yeah but what about monopolies" and defaulted to the Chicago position. There are no real ones, and the closest we have are using the government as a blunt-force club.

But now there are a lot of fucking normies arguing that Google is a monopoly, and I think that every time I've argued over monopolies, I was talking past the other person, and them past me.

Am I the only one who knows that Google isn't a monopoly? Am I the only one who thinks Google's dominance is thanks to hordes of sheep and corporate IT lazies continuing to use Google services and not actually find out that there are thousands of competing or open-source options?

>There are no real ones, and the closest we have are using the government as a blunt-force club.
What happened to Standard Oil?

1. I'm having difficulty imagining a world where McDonald's owns every single cow in the world, which would be necessary for them to have complete control over the burger market. If even a single person has the resources to make a burger, competition exists.

2. My interests are what they are. Engaging in voluntary trade is me pursuing an interest.

3. It is not in the people's interest to have the government take their money and spend it on a dying business.

4. No, you can live sacrificially in a capitalist countries. Every single act of charity made by Bill Gates is not pursuing his individual financial interests.

5. If it wasn't for the benefit of the people that cars replaced buggies, it wouldn't have happened.

>oh neat, a libertarian/ancap thread!
>NAPfaggotry within a few posts

The NAP is statism if you implement it any broader than your personal views and conduct. Stop this cancer and understand how monopolies die in a free market.

Protip: people NAP'ing all over monopolies doesn't kill monopolies. Competition and alternative market choices do.

One big company owns all the eggs? Eat goddamn cereal for breakfast instead.
One big company owns all the gasoline? Use goddamn electricity instead.

For a company to be so fucking successful and perfect that it takes over an entire market without collapsing under it's own debt is a signal to the consumer that they're the best manager of resources. Why would you destroy a monopoly if they're the best at what they do? They're the apex capitalist.

>Why would you destroy a monopoly if they're the best at what they do? They're the apex capitalist.

Since when did capitalism become collectivist?
Being the "best manager of resources" doesn't mean they're best at managing those resources to deliver a quality product to all their customers, it means they're best at managing them to increase their profits and secure the financial position of their company.

Will you honestly say you can't imagine any reasons for why that monopoly could be bad for society overall?

>how do you prevent monopolies?
you don't
the more money you have the more you make ----> monopolies

This

DUDE
U
D
E
WEED

Most RIGHT-WING libertarians don't believe in the state helping those "in need". Charity is much better

>This seems to be the best form of government, but how do you prevent monopolies?

You realize the rigid libertarian ideology doesn't allow for even reasonable regulation of human behavior, and become a conservative instead.

This. The NAP can still exist, but the Don't Tread On Me phrase should be first and foremost.

>reasonable regulation of human behavior


this is that faggot shit where you start mutilating baby dicks and giving women free shit.....


get copter

1 Does that single person have the resources to not only make burgers, but sell them to EVERYONE?

2 A person's interests are completely separate from their own whims and desires. Natural law is absolute.

3. It is, as long as the business is providing something beneficial to the society.

4. If he continues to do that, he will be outcompeted by people who don't.

5. It wouldn't have happened if we were a society organized around what benefits the people. But we aren't, we're capitalist. Our society is organized around what benefits the consumers, and cars replacing buggies did.

you don't, if they are there they deserve it but it's unlikely to happen
(hint: there's not government enforced intellectual property)

Reasonable regulation of human behavior would prevent those two things, dumbass.
You would market them to make a profit.
Which is exactly why they're already happening here in the first place.

twitter.com/TrumInTheNorth/status/899793901724336130

Fascism

Checks and balances, you filthy leaf.

1. As soon as he can sell a better burger, or a cheaper burger, he's making money and creating competition for McDonald's.

2. No. I spend my money on what I desire to spend it on.

3. Business that are dying are not providing services that are beneficial. If they are, someone else is doing it better or cheaper, and therefore they are not necessary.

4. And how do you you think that competitor would go about beating Bill Gates? By swimming in a pool of money? Or by creating a better and cheaper product? Is this not beneficially to the people?

5. No, I think it benefited the people to be able to travel much greater distances at much greater speeds. Cars replaced buggies because they filled the purpose of buggies better to the benefit of the people.

A true free market will result in any business that fucks people over being less popular and competition would sprout up and swallow up their market share.

In a true free market Monopolies would crumble once they start taking advantage of their consumers. MONOPOLIES ARE ABOMINATIONS OF THE STATE

Amazon $9.95.

The answer is laissez-faire capitalism is riddled with issues. Fascism answers most of them but opens a whole slew of other problems (mostly corruption based).

This is why most modern fascists used to be libertarians. They realize that libertarianism would lead to monopolies, and a replacement of the native libertarian people. It's a self-defeating idealogy. So then you take capitalism, and you put some reigns on it, and you've got fascism.

You overestimate your fellow man. Most would just fall in line, do whatever. Eventually you might have a communist revolution or something I guess.

1 How does he make money purely by being ABLE to sell a better/cheaper burger? How does he create competition for McDonald's in markets that he has no access to, since his only resources are the ingredients of a burger and a way to cook it, but not any method of distribution?

2 What you desire to spend your money on has literally nothing to do with what's in your interests as a person. You're still viewing yourself as a consumer.

3. That's a baseless statement. Businesses suffer for a myriad of reasons beyond not providing services that are beneficial. And if we're talking about in a capitalist, free market scenario, then it's not about providing a beneficial service, but about a service that people want.

4. If the competitor's committing 100% of his resources towards creating a product people want more, he has an advantage over anyone not using 100% of their resources. It's the same as the small business vs big business situation.

5. Explain how it's benefited the people, then.
Remember, the people; not the consumers.

ok but in a very general sense, what if you came up with something to sell people that had positive effects for 70 years and then killed them, and you made 16 million dollars off it? where are your checks and balances now?

monopolies only exist because of govt control
in a free market people would start new companies to dispute for the market with the number of producers is too low because it is profitable

You stop getting profits, eventually losing money over time.
I'm not an ancap, but this question was retarded.

1. He walks down the street and offers a better/cheaper burger to his neighbor.

2. I play guitar as a hobby. When I was a beginner, I purchased a cheap, low quality guitar. A few years later, I purchased a high quality, expensive one. It was nice to have those options.

3. Businesses suffer because they are not profitable. They are not profitable because what they provide either isn't beneficial/ of interest, or what they provide is offered cheaper/better by someone else. This benefits the people.

4. Yes, this is once again to the benefit of the people. Cheaper goods, more money to be charitable with.

5. Now I can travel great distances to go care for someone who is ill. Probably wouldn't make it in time if traveling by buggy.

It's an intricate question because technically google isn't a monopoly (tons of alternatives obv) but the EU court ruled them as a monopoly recently because it seems people are too retarded to actually use the alternatives (and google fucks the EU with taxes evasion so they're salty as fuck)
But I'm certain they aren't a real monopoly since I don't use their services so no you aren't alone

>This seems to be the best form of government

Hilarious.

how would they make a profit if they don't deliver a quality product fucking retarded idiot
voluntary transaction = win + win

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

This. Monopolies exist because of government issued licenses (patents, copyright, permits, licenses).

1 Does he walk to each corner of the country as well?

2 What you feel about having the option to do it doesn't effect whether it'd be in your interest, in any way, whatsoever. It either is or isn't.

3 "Unemployment and poverty benefits the people"

4 Why would they be charitable with the money and repeat the exact same mistakes as the person they just outcompeted?

5. You having to assume the responsibility of the state and take care of people who are mortally ill is not beneficial to the people.

> my fantasies are reality
Fuck that's an unrealistic scenario.

>Ancap retard equates a consumer's perception of what a quality product is to what would be objectively best for the society
If you expected me to be surprised, I'm not.

> people actually think removing barriers creates monopolies
Not historically, not logically & not in practice.

> objectively best for the society
....and what would that be smart arse? Go on fucking spell it out for us. Fucking intellectuals, you who judge humanity to be so small you are not of a finer clay than the rest of us you're a fucking moron tbqh.

>the exact scenario that's created nations from city-states and empires from nations is unrealistic
What happened to Standard Oil?

Inb4 muh incentive to invent

The unevolved, primitive Ancap ape is ignorant of the most basic, fundamental instinct of life
And spurns intellectualism
Also not surprising.

>survival

Standard oil had a large market share world wide that people enjoyed until they didn't & their market share fell. What of it?
>the exact scenario that's created nations from city-states and empires from nations is unrealistic
IF you think that's what it is, but it's not you're just painting McDonalds on the current system & calling it a refutation of a theory in practice in your own imagination I think they call that a strawman but whatever, keep burning it down if it makes you feel better. Strange fellows around here I swear.

Ancaps dont believe anyones opinion matters in regards to who gets to live. We think that a regulation and welfare free soceity is best for deciding who carries on the torch of humanity

1. He doesn't need to at first. Once he's made enough money he'll open a restaurant selling his burger. If he continues to sell better/cheaper burgers, the business will grow. Eventually he can open up restaurants around the world.

Or, McDonald's recognizes their loss of customers to this man, and realizes they need to offer even better/cheaper food in order to win customers back. Either outcome benefits the people.

2. If the only guitars that existed were $1,000+ high quality ones, I can assure you I'd have found another hobby.

3. It benefits the masses and temporarily harms those in the business. They can find other work, we can keep our money.

4. No, the guy who beats Bill Gates because Bill was being to charitable would provide a cheaper service in order to beat Bill. This would leave more money in the pocket of the people, with which they can be more charitable.

5. Me taking care of someone sick is beneficial to him. Everyone taking care of those around them is beneficial to everyone.

>What's wrong with Rockefeller owning our country?

>If I say history only exists in his imagination I don't have to substantiate my own positions

that dont sound like ancap

>but how do you prevent monopolies?
Since there's no government around to enable them in the first place, you just don't have to.

> survival
> objectively best for society
> consumer's perception of what a quality product is
Yeah mate you define the objective good survival metric for building houses from timber vs bricks vs concrete.
> And spurns intellectualism
The vulgar pride of intellectuals, people who think the know what's best for others, that they can plan society naively, people who are experienced in some area but think their brain is large enough to plan all other areas, people who pay no price for being wrong, yes the intellectual planners that gave us the worlds atrocities should be fucking hung. THere's nothing wrong with intelligence, but wisdom is recognizing what you do not know.

Yeah, I outlined in my first post here how libertarian/ancap is about shirking your responsibilities to your fellows.

But with that being the case,
Do you expect us to believe your opinion matters in regards to what you think is best for carrying the torch of humanity?

> le green text straw men.jpg
Wow really made me think, I think I have to reconsider my whole position now your logic is just fucking flawless cunt.

1 Is that fact or baseless speculation?
>Either outcome benefits the people
You're again confusing people with consumers.

2 Whether you choose that hobby or not doesn't change whether it would be in your interests.

3 They can only find other work if other work is available. You keeping your money is beneficial to you as a consumer. Since the cost of that is part of your society suffering, it does not benefit the masses at all

4 They don't need to provide a cheaper service to beat Bill. They're committing more of their resources to producing the service than him, that's enough to overtake him eventually. At this point you're just completely ignoring the original topic, which is that capitalism removes people's incentives to be charitable. "Weaponizing the selfishness of individuals against the society"

5. If everyone were taking care of those around them, your example for how cars have benefitted us would no longer apply.
How can you take care of someone around you if you're forced to drive a great distance and take care of someone else?

>I don't want to own my own position so I'll just say you're strawmanning me :^)

Why does there have to be a survival metric for what houses are built out of?

Spare us your pathetic, juvenile ranting
>wahh he thinks he knows what's best for others
>who's he to say that eating myself into a diabetic coma isn't good for me? The ARROGANCE of him!

It's not my position, that's the point of a strawman. I don't have to defend your absurd scenarios.