Sup Forums is a bunch of freedom hating boot-lickers, who can't into free market.
The free market is building an entirely new internet to solve the net neutrality issue, and free speech at the same time.
Meanwhile Sup Forums sits around whining about this bill and that bill. When big daddy government doesn't even matter.
The lead development of this project is Sup Forumsencarnate.
lmao
this is some alex jones tier shit
I need it for arresting niggers and deporting spiks. That’s about it other than interstates, roads, some military, and very little EPA regulations.
what the fuck is this?
how do i get my new internet?
Libtards are just useful idiots for the Jew corporations and the "big daddy government" the only thing you have managed to do is justify outsourcing, "muh free market" degeneracy "muh freedom" and corporate boot licking "at least its not duh gobment"
Trump is cutting 22 regulations for every new regulation. That’s refreshing as fuck. I never thought we would see anything like this ever again. It would be healthy for you to rejoice a little, user. You’re going to miss this era when it’s gone. Things are good man.
BASED
go back to /biz/
U mean 2
You can't lobby libertarians. You can lobby anyone else. You are a useful goyim.
Please explain how the AnCap inter-state road system would work?
Business who rely heavily on such infrastructure will ensure it's there, because otherwise they can't do business.
The likelihood of people who make things as resource intensive and intricate as modern mining and drilling capital sitting on their fingers and thinking to themselves "HMMM. I SURE WISH I COULD MOVE MY MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MACHINES FROM POINT A TO POINT B, BUT THERE ARE NO FLAT SPACES. I GUESS IT'S A LOST CAUSE!" is just ridiculously unrealistic.
So then one business would build out such infrastructure and strangle any and all competitors and with their monopoly installed would shit on any and all government interference and literally no-one could do anything about it, ever.
Cool.
In most cases there would be collaborative efforts because there's no reason to shoulder the entire costs of something like that that everyone's gonna benefit from. There's no reason to stop other people from utilizing the roads after the sunk costs either - it's good press and doesn't cost you anything more.
Ah nice, a think-piece that goes on and on about how natural monopolies don't exist. Was I supposed to wipe my ass with it? Because its little solace in terms of rebuttal for a de-facto presentation of the system you proposed and how one corporation or group of companies can very easily game the system and control all the pieces on the board and be unstoppable without government intervention.
Natural monopolies factually haven't existed.
As fact. Factual fact that is demonstrably so.
So your rebuttal of an actual monopoly that formed in real life is some Austrian Economist telling me how natural ones don't form.
Cool. This is why AnCaps are as easy to deal with as Communists, their head is so shoved clear up the ass of their Utopian missives that they try to ignore factual outcomes of their proposals.
One word: FLYING CARS
Government literally created the Bell monopoly, and you're using it as somehow showcasing an instance of "natural monopoly".
It's laughable how stupid you are.
Literally never used the term natural monopoly. Ma Bell was an ACTUAL monopoly that existed in the exact system you have proposed for roads.
Oh and if you want to shift the goal-post to claim that I was saying natural monopoly
See:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
It was a government created monopoly, like most monopolies in history.
And you're using a government created monopoly as if it's a counter-example to people making roads without government even existing. That's ridiculous and stupid.
>So your rebuttal of an actual monopoly that formed in real life is some Austrian Economist telling me how natural ones don't form.
Did you even read it? Did you understand it? I'm guessing no because if you had, you wouldn't have replied the way you did.
I guess it's just way easier to bury your head in the sand and pretend you're right, while shitting on people who have read these arguments and understood them.
Do I need to tell you what this kind of behavior makes you?
All of the market conditions you put in place in your suggestions were present in the telecom market before the rise of Ma' Bell.
And like I said: Fine, you can move the goal post as fast as you like. Let's talk about companies that moved out to bumblefuck, setup Company Towns and then raked their employees over the coals with the Company Store system.
Another actual example in real life that you and the Austrian Economist with your heads up your ass have not accounted for.
>Literally never used the term natural monopoly.
Again, you're showing how far out of your depth you are. His point is that the monopoly you've cited was created by government, so the existence of a monopoly created by government can hardly be used to justify a government, you complete and utter retard. Just go away before you continue to embarrass yourself with your ignorance.
I skimmed through it and saw that what the economist was speaking about and what I was did not align and so I noted this fact. But again: if you want to talk natural monopoly then fine. Tell me how Company Towns never existed.
>l of the market conditions you put in place in your suggestions were present in the telecom market before the rise of Ma' Bell
No - they weren't. Specifically, there aren't:
1) The intentional elimination of what was considered wasteful or duplicative competition through exclusionary licensing policies, misguided interconnection edicts, protected monopoly status for dominant carriers, and guaranteed revenues for those regulation utilities
2) The mandated social policy of universal telephone (((entitlement))), which implicitly calls for a single provider to easily carry out regulatory orders from the state
and 3) the regulation of rates (through rate averaging and cross-subsidization) to achieve the social policy objective of universal service.
These are not conditions that can exist absent the state, and were absolutely necessary for the monopoly you're trying to leverage as some kind of counterexample.
Oh you skimmed through it and then determined it was bullshit? I can tell I'm dealing with a real genius here.
>Tell me how Company Towns never existed.
Tell me how "Company Towns" are an example of a monopoly? You realize that there are other towns? You realize anyone could make a "company town"...? This means that you have not shown an example of a monopoly, retard.
You are either clinically retarded, or you're just baiting. In any case, this is boring now.
>Moves to goal-post to talking about natural monopolies
>Doesn't want to discuss the documented natural monopolies of Company Towns
>Says that no such thing could exist without government interference
Cool. Again: This is why AnCaps are easy as Sunday morning.
Monopoly with government meddling: Ma' Bell
Monopoly without government meddling: Company Towns in the Western US before Federal regulations against them
Being a corporate slave cuck sure sounds like freedom!
>i liek 4 de state 2 stomp on peepul i haet
>butt sure it won't nevar use dose powahs 'gainst me
>BRRRAAAAAPPP
Say if you could hurry up and die horribly of some kind of cancer, that'd be great. Thanks!
>my example was stupid
>stop talking about it
Admit it was (and thus you are) moronic first, then I'll obliterate you on your absolutely non-argument of "company towns".
It's called Monero.
>Gives me shit for skimming a long article on how natural monopolies can't exist
>Can't even read the most rudimentary information on Company Towns and their monopolistic hold over their employees
Let me break it down for you: Before the US Government had an effective federal influence on the developing West, companies would move out there and attract families with sweet deals. While these deals were very attractive up-front, almost all of them locked the employees into using only what the company dictated, they did this by way of a credit system instead of actual wages. If you ever decided to take your pay in actual cash they would severely dock and reduce your pay to a pittance of what you would earn with credits.
Now, explain how this is not monopolistic in nature?
>Uummm, I am going to wait to address your argument...even though I shifted the goal-post to another argument...trust me... I am going to address it any day!
>shifted the goal post
>Ma Bell was an ACTUAL monopoly that existed in the exact system you have proposed for roads
>in the exact system you have proposed for roads
I've literally been addressing exactly what you said, which was objectively wrong, and stupid. Just like you are - personally - wrong and stupid
>^_^
>goal posts!!!!!!!1111111111
>thunnndayy morning
Please tell me this is bait.
Do you seriously not understand why he started talking about natural monopolies? In a nutshell, he assumed you weren't this dumb. He's not moving the goal posts you fucking pleb. Do you not understand that showing an unnatural monopoly (state created monopoly) is obviously not a reason why we need a state?
If you can't even wrap your head around that, you need to take a step back.
The exact situation was:
Business who rely heavily on such infrastructure will ensure it's there, because otherwise they can't do business.
The likelihood of people who make things as resource intensive and intricate as modern mining and drilling capital sitting on their fingers and thinking to themselves "HMMM. I SURE WISH I COULD MOVE MY MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MACHINES FROM POINT A TO POINT B, BUT THERE ARE NO FLAT SPACES. I GUESS IT'S A LOST CAUSE!" is just ridiculously unrealistic.
Going to wait for either of you to explain how that exact situation doesn't exemplify the Telecom Market before the rise of Ma' Bell.
>Going to wait for either of you to explain how that exact situation doesn't exemplify the Telecom Market before the rise of Ma' Bell
You:
>all of the market conditions you put in place in your suggestions were present in the telecom market before the rise of Ma' Bell
Me:
>No - they weren't. Specifically, there aren't:
>1) The intentional elimination of what was considered wasteful or duplicative competition through exclusionary licensing policies, misguided interconnection edicts, protected monopoly status for dominant carriers, and guaranteed revenues for those regulation utilities
>2) The mandated social policy of universal telephone (((entitlement))), which implicitly calls for a single provider to easily carry out regulatory orders from the state
>and 3) the regulation of rates (through rate averaging and cross-subsidization) to achieve the social policy objective of universal service
I'm sorry you can't read. Your life must be hard.
Because, shitlord, that's not what a monopoly is as I explained to you already. It's like you're basing your idea of a monopoly off of the literal game of monopoly where you win by owning everything.
Just because you own everything in one particular town, it does not mean you have a monopoly, retard.
When one firm is the ONLY firm in a particular industry, that firm has a monopoly, and that monopoly is not problematic unless the firm starts charging monopoly prices and is somehow able to prevent other firms from entering the industry (this only ever happens when government is involved, which is the point of the mises article, dumbass).
There are other towns, therefore, the owner of one company town does not have a monopoly. There are other businesses, therefore the town owner, who owns all the businesses does not have a monopoly.
You could say that the owner of a company town has a monopoly on his property... but that's a meaningless statement. Everyone could have a monopoly on the services they provide on their own fucking property.
I cited your exact words that you originally presented to which my reply was Ma' Bell
You shifted to talking about natural monopoly.
Do you not even know how this shows that you shifted the goal-post?
>When one firm is the ONLY firm in a particular industry, that firm has a monopoly
In a company town that one firm has control over all industry.
>can't defend self from subhumans
>can't compete with foreigners in the job market
>muh roads
interesting
>just open your borders goy
>I cited your exact words that you originally presented to which my reply was Ma' Bell
Yes, and then I cited your exact words which directly address your exact words in both the post I just responded to and the one I quoted.
Are you going to maintain I DIDN'T just address EXACTLY what you JUST asked me, which was:
>>Going to wait for either of you to explain how that exact situation doesn't exemplify the Telecom Market before the rise of Ma' Bell
>In a company town that one firm has control over all industry.
oh wow all 4 of them
if you don't like foreigners you're free to exclude them from your property
>which directly address your exact words
In your address you shifted the goal-post, why the fuck is this so hard for you to get?
You laid out the situation here:
I rebutted with Ma' Bell, which satisfied your stipulations. Then here you added that the situation must exist in a regulatory vacuum (to which I say: Good luck finding such a place, guess you are moving to Somalia or Syria soon) to which I gave you an exact situation where such a regulatory vacuum once existed: Company Towns
They're all LARPers
>In a company town that one firm has control over all industry.
you realize I addressed this in the post you just responded to? owning all the businesses on property you own, does not mean you have a monopoly and the term would be meaningless if it did. you clearly do not understand what a monopoly is. you are clearly out of your depth. you clearly need to step back from this conversation until you learn the meaning of basic terms like "monopoly".
You believe that factories will regulate their own pollution?
>In your address you shifted the goal-post
>Going to wait for either of you to explain how that exact situation doesn't exemplify the Telecom Market before the rise of Ma' Bell
You:
>all of the market conditions you put in place in your suggestions were present in the telecom market before the rise of Ma' Bell
Me:
>No - they weren't. Specifically, there aren't:
>1) The intentional elimination of what was considered wasteful or duplicative competition through exclusionary licensing policies, misguided interconnection edicts, protected monopoly status for dominant carriers, and guaranteed revenues for those regulation utilities
>2) The mandated social policy of universal telephone (((entitlement))), which implicitly calls for a single provider to easily carry out regulatory orders from the state
>and 3) the regulation of rates (through rate averaging and cross-subsidization) to achieve the social policy objective of universal service
You don’t believe that interstates are worth it?
They're valuable. What's being questioned is the methods by which we provision what we think is valuable in life.
>all 4 of them
Ah, so you don't even understand how a single company running a town can give them complete control over all industry by way of wage manipulation
Just like this moron:
Let me break it down for you morons (again).
In Coal Corp Town, every citizen works for Coal Corp. Coal Corp. finds their citizens drinking milk imported from Milk Corp Town instead of Coal Corp Brand Milk Drink. They price Coal Corp Milk Drink at 1 Credit and Imported Milk at $1, but to get $1 you have to trade in 5 credits. The people of Coal Corp. Town give up imported milk except for a select few who pay through the nose in the conversion fee to have milk.
consumers will
worth the minimal amount of money I would have to pay to use them (assuming I would even have to) in an ancap society? sure
Thanks, just bought 100k
>Coal Corp. finds their citizens drinking milk imported from Milk Corp Town instead of Coal Corp Brand Milk Drink. They price Coal Corp Milk Drink at 1 Credit and Imported Milk at $1, but to get $1 you have to trade in 5 credits
The sheer fact that there are alternatives means there's no monopoly you dipshit. Jesus Christ.
So you stated the conditions of:
1) Business who rely on the system
2)Business who would not sit on their ass in need of said system
I gave you the example of Ma' Bell.
You then, in a separate post, pivoted to saying that there must be a regulatory vacuum over said system or you would not accept my PREVIOUS rebuttal....and you still don't see how this is shifting the goal-posts?
To Reiterate: Ma' Bell completely satisfies your original stipulation of companies that need a service existing in the market. If you had wanted to add more stipulations (i.e. your AnCap Wonderland) you should have done them in that post, or it is shifting the goal-post.
Nonsense. Consumers will pay for the cheaper product.
It's like you think a monopoly is like the game of monopoly where once you own a set of properties you can just jack up the price to the maximum!
>The sheer fact that there are alternatives means there's no monopoly you dipshit.
And again you lay out how stupid you truly are.
If an "alternative" is priced entirely out of any and all reasonable, I repeat: REASONABLE competition. Then we have a monopoly.
There were other internet browsers outside of Internet Explorer, and yet anyone with a brain (an exclusive club to which you lack membership apparently) would tell you that IE had a monopoly on the Internet Browser market
Yes, because an anarchist arguing in an ancap thread about a free market road system in the absence of government is best properly assumed to be advocating for a road system without government WITH (paradoxically) government involvement.
Yep.
That's logical.
Pretty brilliant reasoning there Tyrone.
>Its fine if I move the goal-posts because in my mind I live in AnCap Wonderland
Cool.
>If an "alternative" is priced entirely out
Then you have a cheaper good, and there's no monopoly issue.
You realize the problem of monopoly is the myth that firms price out, and then price RAISE, right?
Well, it turns out that that never happens.
ah yes all of the alternatives to coal and oil cost $20248938399999999923488823 and factoring in nothing else consumers will prefer dirty industry over clean industry
I'm really glad I stuck it to you, since the likelihood of you being so stupid that you don't even realize how moronic you've been is slim even for a statist libcuck.
That you're blithering on as if you're saving face on an anonymous fucking imageboard only makes my dick harder, since it demonstrates how mad and impotent you and the things you believe are.
Ah, so let me take your stupid argument to its conclusion.
Milk Corp owns every milk producing facility or animal across the entire Continent of Asia, all but one goat owned by a farmer in Hong Kong. As long as you can fly from one end of the country, buy from that one farmer a single bottle of milk and return home then no monopoly exists?
You truly are an AnCap brainlet.
>Milk Corp owns every milk producing facility or animal across the entire Continent of Asia
There's never even remotely been such a scenario in the history of mankind. Why would an economist concerned with reality grant a completely mythical scenario as being a substantive rebuttal to a historical question about reality?
>There's never even remotely been such a scenario in the history of mankind.
Yep, its not like entire countries have had their water privatized. And then an uprising of people who felt that the threshold for reasonable had long been breached...oh wait:
We don't hate the idea of the state. We hate the state we live under. That's why we want to either reform it or tear it down, which is why we are hedging our bets with elections and crypto-currencies at the same time. It's a war with multiple fronts, and we have contingency plans for every circumstance. That's what being a proper fascist is all about, planning and execution as well as group cooperation for objective completion towards an end goal.
>The public water utility came under some criticism in 2008 due to water shortages, accounting errors, tariff increases and poor disaster preparedness. Consequently, representatives of the La Paz neighborhood association announced to create their own service provider
wew
Also, good luck keeping water out of places where you can get a premium for bringing it to and selling it.
It's why price gouging during natural disasters is a really important pricing mechanism - it diverts resources through monetary incentive to places that need them the most.
I need it for securing the ethnostate and forbidding that ethnostate from being subverted and overrun with foreigners.
>We don't hate the idea of the state
Speak for yourself. I absolutely DO hate the idea of violent goons constantly threatening people for not obeying their arbitrary whims.
Well for one thing, the reason we can't defend ourselves is because those subhumans keep voting for more government, and then the feds break down our door for shooting people that shouldn't be here in the first place.
>Your natural extrapolation of my insane claim can never happen!
>Situation where a scaled version happened to a resource even more precious
>W-w-well...the utility they replaced it with sucked
Like fish in the most stupid of barrels.
show flag, leaf
Then destroy the democratic government altogether
>can never
No, it just never has, and we're talking about reality and history, which are what economics is based on - reality and history.
The "private" water companies had exclusionary government policies on their side. It's the exact same situation as with every other monopoly you will ever find.
>Countries have policies
Ya don't say!
Like I said: You really need to move to the shittiest parts of Syria or Somalia. You seem very well suited for it.
>It's the exact same situation as with every other monopoly you will ever find.
You still have yet to rebut in any reasonable way Company Towns that moved out of the reach of the US Government.
Somalia has and has had for a very long time a central government and central bank, as does Syria.
I'm an anarchist. I'm arguing for free markets in the absence of a violent and subversive state. It is absolutely hilarious that you keep pretending that's not the context we're talking under when it's repeatedly pointed out to you that the monopolies you seem to hate are ALL - without a SINGLE exception - creations of states and state policy.
You mean like the current system?
We need a state, but one run by the people, for the people.Hierarchy.
Fascism, the third position, opposing both capitalism and socialism alongside Marxism as a whole.
Make corruption punishable by death and allow the citizens to have firearms .
To ensure our traditions and race survive, and that degeneracy doesn't rise, the individual and the collective are combined:united we are stronger
Competition and unity for our people, a stronger people. No forced equality, we respect the laws of nature.
Pro private property and pro workers , all that benefit the nation which in turn the people benefit. You're allowed to become wealthy as long as you treat the workers fair and don't harm the nation.
More in pic related
>Take company stores. Why did mining companies often own the town store? The standard answer: to squeeze every nickel from the workers so they would “owe their soul to the company store.” But that lyrical argument makes no sense and the truth is actually closer to the opposite.
>The mining towns were isolated geographically but they weren’t isolated from the national labor market. The number of workers in these towns moved up and down in response to the price of coal and the workers often traveled long-distances to work in the mines, sometimes from other states or other countries. The company towns were isolated not because the workers couldn’t get out but because few people wanted to live where coal was abundant. As a result, workers had to be enticed to travel to and to live in these towns. Oil rigs are similarly isolated today and once on board the workers have nowhere to go but the company restaurant, the company theater and the company gym but that hardly means that the workers are exploited.
>Since the mine workers weren’t isolated from the national labor market they had to be paid wages consistent with wages elsewhere and indeed on an hourly basis wages in mining were higher than in manufacturing (not surprising since these jobs were riskier). Moreover, workers weren’t dumb and so–just like workers today–they would consider the price of housing and the price of goods in these towns so see how far their wages would take them. All of this suggests that workers would not be fooled by high wages and really high prices at the company store that nullified those wages. And indeed, prices at company stores were not especially high and were similar to prices at independent stores in similar locations.
saying the same annoying shit over and over isnt a decentralized network
its you being a fucking retard
>He still has nothing to counter a situation where companies literally escaped government influence and abused their workers with the Company Store scam
>There are no lawless places in Syria or Somalia that personify your supposed Utopia
Cool.
>bused their workers with the Company Store scam
>prices at company stores were not especially high and were similar to prices at independent stores in similar locations
I'll take Price V. Fishback's take on it, rather than some AnCap moron and Alex Tabarrok
Softcoal, Hard Choices?
Because that's literally where my data comes from ^_^
>t. lolbertarian
>t. Retarded NEETSoc
You literally believe in national gibs and authoritarianism.