Can anarcho capitalists explain how their idealism wouldn't lead to large monopolies and company towns, aka...

Can anarcho capitalists explain how their idealism wouldn't lead to large monopolies and company towns, aka, government and a non-voluntary society?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

shameless bump

> large monopolies
Well you see government is the largest monopoly and it actually creates corporate ones. Corporations are state created fictions so without them and with 0 barriers its impossible to have a long-term monopoly, only possible through continued threats of force government style. A business decentralizing important services can only get away with what people want it and allow it to get away with so the aesthetic is completely different and so are the incentives.

> company towns, aka, government
The voluntary alternatives should only be akin to government in the service is provides, but not in the manner at which it provides it.

There are a long list of distinctions between for example a business or communal alternative and states:
> voluntarily engaged
> subject to competition within the same geographical area
> have actual recourse
> does not claim to be above persons and property
etc. Even if an alternative had only one of these characteristics or the slew of others, I would consider supporting it personally.

Hope that helps clear up the mentality a bit.

they cant. its a fucking meme ideology. people will always organize and build a state. they are all utterly retarded. pretty much like leftits ignoring human nature

Anarcho-capitalism = Dissolve all states so we can reform them from the ground up, on primarily economic rather than primarily cultural terms.

Essentially a reset button.

"Anarcho" and everything about "voluntary" association is just for libercuckian outreach, it's not grounded in reality.

that sounds awful

> voluntary
> not grounded in reality
Voluntarism is everywhere in private life, it's observable reality. I'm not sure what you mean.

> the level of discourse on here
> people will always organize and build a state
People will always need certain essential services, they don't need to be provided by a state and whoever provides them isn't necessarily a state.

Never giving up. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution

so you're argument hinges on the idea that monopolies only exist because of government?

No, more that if monopolies are bad, supporting the biggest monopoly and the main monopoly creator which is itself a violent monopoly is a bit of a contradiction or retarded in the least.

That "naturally occuring" market monopolies are temporary so long as consumers are given what they need/want which is the only positive position a monopoly can be in, imo.

But what stops a monopoly from becoming a government like entity? At least the government as a thin veil of civic responsibility, whereas a corporation's bottom line is only the dollar.

"Private life" is the same thing in that context. And "monopoly on force". All spooks designed for libertarian outreach.
Something isn't voluntary if it's done out of personal necessity.

But monopolies are by definition government created. The concept of monopolies forming without government interference is a recent leftist creation.

Nothing (though the book "Democracy: The God That Failed" goes into great detail about this) but you give the government today way too much credit. Think about traffic laws, how often is it just traffic cops handing out tickets to make more money for the state? The state is hugely inefficient with money (we'd be better off just handing our money to poor people than let the state handle welfare). There's also less reason for a corporation to create a state due to these inefficiencies compared to having customers voluntarily give them money. Slavery is inefficient.

>But monopolies are by definition government created.
So is private property
It's semantics

Your perception of current states seems pretty weird. We aren't slaves. We are """voluntarily""" leasing from the state. Its inefficiencies are a mark on the low standards of the "customer". Think all the consumerist fags who continuously buy products with designed obsolescence.

>But monopolies are by definition government created
semantics

and to your second point

Sure, a private company would be better with money, but they would have more reasons to exploit their customers to the fullest extent. And in a situation where a company provides all the options then you have no options.

I think it's more of a shame that people continue to try the idea of the state, and it keeps failing. It always results in a decrease in personal liberties until someone says they had enough, rebel, and establish a new state based on freedom. The most recent being the United States. But that failed ever since the Civil War, lasting not even a century.

One thing is for certain, the state makes war very easy. Indoctrinate people to be loyal to the state, and you have all the money you want to spend on it through taxation.

I think it's more interesting to look at a statist society in layman terms, and realize how insane it really is.

>what do you do about large monoplies

Through the use of force and at the threat of jail time, you make them relinquish their assets and break them up into smaller separate companies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States

>but they would have more reasons to exploit their customers to the fullest extent
Most of the time they exploit the government to enforce regulations and taxes that reduce competition. In a stateless system they'd have to make the best product for the best price and are eternally anticipating someone else making a better product for a better price. Without using the monopoly of force they would have to use force themselves to stop competition.

>people continue to try the idea of the state, and it keeps failing.
"Why do people keep creating businesses when all of them eventually fail?"

>It always results in a decrease in personal liberties until someone says they had enough, rebel, and establish a new state based on freedom.
>>what do you do about large monoplies
>Through the use of force and at the threat of jail time, you make them relinquish their assets and break them up into smaller separate companies.

A product selling the best doesn't make it the best product.

>they would have to use force themselves to stop competition.
Competition isn't created out of thin air as soon as one business starts thriving. It requires resources. If those resources aren't available to potential upstarts, there is no competition.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States
>1911
Still waiting for Comcast to get broken up into smaller ISPs. Oh wait, they use local governments to shut down competition. When's the FTC going to do this?

>"Why do people keep creating businesses when all of them eventually fail?"
Most of the time when this happens, an individual would be none the wiser. The risk of a business failing is far more localized than a government failing.

The process of acquiring every stage of production isn't easy, and you have to be a monopoly in every market of every stage of production. At which point the company you're describing becomes a strawman.

>Competition isn't created out of thin air as soon as one business starts thriving.
Yes it does. When ridiculous profits are being made, then any aspiring businessman wants to get in on that. If you're a monopoly you need to thwart competition.

>The risk of a business failing is far more localized than a government failing.
Only in the context of governments existing and therefore the roles they play not being filled by businesses. But what does that have to do with anything?
People keep creating businesses even though they all eventually fail because it's not about them lasting forever. It's about meeting present needs. The same is true for governance, and the state structure is the most efficient at that role, which is why they're continuously created even after overthrows of the most tyrannical and oppressive states.

>The process of acquiring every stage of production isn't easy
You don't need to.

>then any aspiring businessman wants to get in on that
This is the very first resource needed. And it is not created out of thin air.

>If you're a monopoly you need to thwart competition.
I know that. My response is against the assertion that force is necessary for this.

Governments justify violence by distorting culture and language through indoctrination.
> It's not theft it's taxation
> It's not kidnapping it's prison
> It's not violence its law and order
Governments get away with what private people and businesses (corporations dont exist without government) cannot justify on their own.

Governments require public school indoctrination and a group of people to justify their evil, a business can't do the same thing, they don't try to justify their immorality in the same way.

I would prefer even very similar alternatives as long as they have those other characteristics that differ from states, which make states so perverse with their incentives and immoral in their structure.

Voluntary is lack of coercion, if nature is coercing you then it's still voluntary and not involuntary on the part of people offering you options.

Everything is nature.

It's not a distortion of culture or language, it is the culture or language. The fact you happen to subscribe to a different doctrine doesn't discount that.
Theft and kidnapping are both things defined here within the context of the state's laws, which are upheld by the people being subjected to them.
Taxation cannot be theft as, by law, the money being collected as tax is already the property of the state.
Imprisonment cannot be kidnapping as that's the predesignated punishment for whatever offense was committed.
As for violence, I've never heard of a state claiming they don't use it to uphold law and order.
You would use it to uphold the law and order of your doctrine, so I don't see the point.

>a business can't do the same thing
They can do exactly the same thing.

> it is the culture or language
In my mind it's akin to a gang of thugs/conquerors indoctrinating people with new language to keep their positions of power. From kings to presidents.
> Theft and kidnapping are both things defined here within the context of the state's laws
They are also definable as actions between people outside of a legal context.
> cannot be kidnapping as that's the predesignated punishment
Depends on if the authority is recognized. You can't kidnap someone and then in an ethical realm say to them "if you try to escape I will kill you, it's not murder, it's a predesignated punishment".

> As for violence
> You would use it to uphold the law and order of your doctrine
The point of pointing out the violence is that people often don't make the mental connection between all laws and the violent threat underpinning them, so they are more comfortable with what they consider minor or reasonable laws, but in the sense of the violence behind them, would seem quite unreasonable and immoral.

One of the core parts of Libertarianism is the proper use and restrictions on the use of force. Libertarians argue that defensive force is necessary and moral, whereas the initiation of force in the way the state does is not or at least should be minimized as much as possible where "necessary".

It is a conundrum at the end of the day the core points people use to justify force, socialist vs capitalist for example end up at the crossroads of force to take property vs force to defend property due to their different theories of recognizing what is property.

> They can do exactly the same thing.
A business can't extort you involuntarily to "protect you" and call it taxes without just being a state, if a business says you owe us protection money whether you like it or not the evil is shown for what it is, these privately done actions are looked at differently in society than when the government does it. The state justifies immorality and evil.

>burden of proof
Can you explain how the idealism WOULD lead to large monopolies and company towns, aka, government and a non-voluntary society?

>it's akin to a gang of thugs/conquerors indoctrinating people with new language to keep their positions of power.
It's not indoctrination when those people freely choose the doctrine. Nor is any of it new.

>They are also definable as actions between people outside of a legal context.
That is the legal context.

> You can't kidnap someone and then in an ethical realm say to them "if you try to escape I will kill you, it's not murder, it's a predesignated punishment"
You're right, you can't, because if it was predesignated then it wouldn't be kidnapping.

>they are more comfortable with what they consider minor or reasonable laws, but in the sense of the violence behind them, would seem quite unreasonable and immoral.
What's the basis for this?

>A business can't extort you involuntarily to "protect you" and call it taxes without just being a state
Most states don't do this, but the fact that the business would become a state is the point.
The only reason they wouldn't be able to act like a state is if there's already a state in place.

>The state justifies immorality and evil.
That would mean it's not actually immoral or evil. Your morals aren't really relevant to me, anyway.

> freely choose
Debatable. Freely implies this system is voluntary.
> That is the legal context
..and the moment the terms are evoked outside of a legal context?
> if it was predesignated then it wouldn't be kidnapping.
How? Who decides what is predsignated? Predesignation is not sufficient to change the category of an action as I just pointed out.
> What's the basis for this?
People being seemingly comfortable with threats of violence and death for all their personal preferences being written into law, Libertarians want to point out the basis which shocks a lot of morally minded people.

> the fact that the business would become a state is the point.
The difference being, in a situation where the state is replaced by alternatives, it would be replaced and removed for a reason, this reason is why the systems that replace it would take on the other aesthetic. Even now with the state private individuals doing what the state does is condiered evil & immoral, doubly so if societies culture changes to a more libertarian minded one to the point of seeking the removal of the state from core services.
> Your morals aren't really relevant to me
That's the point, to argue what I find to be immoral to find like-minded people or convince those that can be convinced, if you don't care then it doesn't matter but other people do care and that is the purpose of discussion and debate especially when fence-sitters are watching.

Libertarianism only becomes a dominant culture when people agree and accept it, that's the point. To persuade and implement.

I don't know about that, but can we kill all collectivists first, level their cities, break up the biggest monopoly on power there is and then discuss this?

If we're speaking of the US, it's voluntary, and that's not debatable. Somewhere like North Korea would be involuntary.

>and the moment the terms are evoked outside of a legal context?
They don't magically change meaning, if that's what you're asking.

>Who decides what is predsignated?
The government. That's what it exists for.
>Predesignation is not sufficient to change the category of an action as I just pointed out.
It's not changing anything. Changing implies there was a previous state, when the point of "pre"designating is that it's defined before the action altogether.
It's just an issue with your example.

>Libertarians want to point out the basis which shocks a lot of morally minded people.
Again, what's your basis for this? Or are you simply claiming that the people who are shocked are the only ones that are moral?
Because I'd think most people recognize that the threats of violence and death aren't made in regard to those minor laws, but to people escalating the situation and initiating violence rather than accepting the accompanying minor punishments. And as such would view the criminal as the unreasonable one.

>it would be replaced and removed for a reason
That isn't a difference. States are replaced all the time. What "other aesthetic" are you imagining?

I never said I didn't care. I said your morals aren't relevant to me, meaning your continuous assertions about this or that being immoral or evil aren't useful. I only care about truths, and they're reached through logic and science, not opinions.

You apparently can't.

What do you mean by collectivist? Sorry the liberalists kindof muddied.

kindof muddied the definition*

> I only care about truths, and they're reached through logic and science, not opinions.
Opinions form the basis for our beliefs and our hypothesis which the facts and logic are used to prove/disprove.
> What "other aesthetic" are you imagining?
A Libertarian cultural aesthetic, an anti-state, pro-freedom one which has to exist prior to a shift to a Libertarian society in most cases.
> Again, what's your basis for this?
The main basis for this is the inconsistency this stance has with our societies core principles around things like; assault, theft, rape etc. The basis is self-ownership, property rights, natural/human rights etc that prove and lead to our basic morals while showing the inconsistency of these other actions. I guess you could call it an appeal to common ground through a rigorous logical basis starting from sense reality, the material world, the self, and the bases for society.

>which the facts and logic are used to prove/disprove.
This is why your statements about morality aren't useful to me.

>A Libertarian cultural aesthetic, an anti-state, pro-freedom one which has to exist prior to a shift to a Libertarian society in most cases.
Of course it'd have to, but why would it exist? In practice, I mean.

>The main basis for this is the inconsistency this stance has with our societies core principles around things like; assault, theft, rape etc.
What's the inconsistency?
Their stance doesn't involve your specific understanding of self-ownership, property rights or human rights, and definitely not natural rights.
Their stance has their own understanding, and it includes the authority of a state.
i.e. accounting for taxation before defining what, of the resources they're in possession of, is actually their property.