How do libertarians refute the tendence of Capital to create monopolies...

How do libertarians refute the tendence of Capital to create monopolies? Isn't it obvious that the bigger player in a market can wreck any challenger even by selling at a loss?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
cato.org/events/policing-profit-abuse-civil-asset-forfeiture
thefreethoughtproject.com/texas-town-sees-61-drop-crime-firing-cops-hiring-private-firm/
youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_(safety_organization)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>How do libertarians refute the tendence of Capital to create monopolies?
Why do statists allow government to have full-blown monopolies if they're so worried about monopolies in the first place?

Picture made me chuckle. And to answer your bait, no the cheaper product will still sell. It also allows smaller companies to sell the same product to the larger ones at a profit.

the govement should act in the interest of the people, in theory, with corporations no such oath exists

I'd imagine they don't see it as an issue. They'd expect the monopoly to eventually lose out to more dynamic competitors over time, even if it managed to crush competition initially.

I didn't ask that.
I asked why statists are okay with government having monopolies while complaining about corporate monopolies.

How can you legitimately complain about monopoly while supporting state monopoly on force/law/military?

Legal and judicial system must be overhauled if competition among businesses is to be held most dear. This would help prevent, or slow down, the rise of monopolies.

>state monopoly on force/law/military

I really hope you aren't one of those types who would advocate for private military and police. The potential for abuse is astounding.

>The potential for abuse is astounding.
No more so than "public" police/military.
Don't know why you fools think that state-run cops are less prone to corruption than private police.

Do you have any evidence for monopolies?
And how are you defining monopoly?
If I'm the largest producer of horse porn at 8% of the horse porn market, am I a monopoly?
What if I'm the largest of producer of horse porn with blond girls at 60% of the blond hair girl horse porn market?
What about the substitutes for horse porn? Surely if I monopolize the horse porn market and start charging outrageous prices, some people who would view my horse porn would switch to donkey or even dog porn.
I'm really curious as to how you define monopoly.

They're less prone to abuse because when you make things "for profit", you give them numerous more reasons to be abusive. If something doesn't make money, you disregard it. The government doesn't have any concern with making money, so it can set out to achieve it's goals without that being a concern.

>libertarians
>roads
Pick one

>The government doesn't have any concern with making money

>The government doesn't have any concern with making money
Nice. It's good to see complete morons on Sup Forums.
I know it's the britshit and all, but have a look-
youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

"Government doesn't care about making money" lol.

Other than taxing people, of course. It isn't their concern to turn a profit.

Not a libertarian, but most people really overestimate the likelihood of monopolies without government intervention.
The efficient financial market of the US make it all but impossible.
The idea in economics is that a market with a high fixed cost to enter will become a natural monopoly (or as you describe, Capital=fixed cost).
Most people forget that in the long run these costs ultimately are very variable because of efficient financial markets. If there is a monopoly in some industry, then there will be profit incentive and with the vast size of financial markets with investors looking for profit, they will be able to fund a competitor if there is profit in the industry. Wall street is basically a democracy, where small investors aggregate to look for profit and ultimately expand competition where there might not be any.

>contractors
retard

>He says as politicians comprise one of the richest classes in the U.S.

Libertarianism isn't anarcho-capitalism. The state should sometimes step in, such as to break up a monopoly, but that doesn't mean the state should actively prop up dying industries and inflict devastating taxes and tariffs on other bussinesses.

and the actual abuse of the monopoly is even worse
(ruby ridge and shiet)

it's easy to be inefficient with funds, but very difficult to extract money from people other than through taxes

Because they more or less get paid by interested parties to legislate in their favor. Which is a shame, really. Not to mention that many politicians were already born into upper class families.

Or in a way that uses less meme arrows; the people that comprise the government are not necessarily of greater character than their private-sector counterparts. Profit is always on an individual basis, and doesn't change if that individual belongs to a corporation or the government.

The key difference is that corporations must derive their income more or less voluntarily whereas the government can take it through force; and just as the market attracts people best capable of satisfying customers, government tends to attract people best capable of theft (liars and criminals).

the corporation as an institution has the prime goal to turn a profit and enrich shareholders / owners, this is not true for the government

>Because they more or less get paid by interested parties to legislate in their favor.

Which is exactly why "The government doesn't have any concern with making money" is a ridiculous statement. The government "wants" nothing; the people comprising it very much want profit.

Nope, in lolbertarian utopia, govierment just take care of justice, army and police

I love how statists talk about corporations and monopolies and abuse and all that jazz.

I think to myself...
>WWI
>WWII
>Vietnam
>Waco
>US Civil War
Yeah OKAY. Tell me more about evil corporations.

See
People do not become moral angels the moment they get elected. In fact, the qualities necessary in order to get elected -- manipulation, backroom dealing, and the promises of goodies at the public's expense -- reward those with no morals.

Monopolies do happen, and they aren't healthy, but we have to look at causes here. The biggest cause of monopoly formation is and has always been government interference in the markets. Barriers to entry are almost always artificial, with a few exceptions, and the government is the one that produces these barriers.

Aside from some extremists most Libertarians are not opposed to some regulation of the markets by government, but each of these must be justified explicitly. When you just handwave it and say "well it's the government's role to regulate everything" you're basically handing the keys to the biggest corporation of all--one that can bail itself out using your money indefinitely, and doesn't have to actually produce anything to be paid.

In perfectly competitive markets we see time and time again that prices rush downwards to the benefit of the consumer. Our aim should be to make as many markets as possible as competitive as possible so that the natural instincts of Capital benefit society, not to make markets LESS competitive and then penalize corporations for following the money.

It's easy to point out potential problems with more market freedom, but it's disingenuous to do so while ignoring the colossal problems that come with restricting that freedom. On the whole we have benefited greatly from our system of markets, and more benefit could be achieved with more freedom.

The "prime goal" of something is always its own survival. Corporations only survive by enriching their shareholders and owners. Governments survive by allocating themselves more power. The stated moral goal of government does not align with its empirical motivations.

what do you think 2nd amendment is for?

I am a libertarian but I am all for trust busting.(breaking up monopolies essentially) not all of us are retarded extremists.

>the people comprising it very much want profit

But not as an institution. When you broadly prioritize generating a profit over diplomatic missions and enforcing law, you risk letting those essential goals of government fall to the wayside. I personally don't want our military fighting as mercenaries for the highest bidder.

NO OFFICER I AM NOT DONE TELLING YOU ABOUT RON PAUL YET

>government doesn't care about making money

cato.org/events/policing-profit-abuse-civil-asset-forfeiture

I don't know, because US citizens haven't used it at all for its original purpose.

that's true, and there's also people in corporations that will let themselves be bribed at the expense of the company they work for, the difference is that if you said "this corporation did nothing but increase its profits" people would say "good, that's what it's about", while in the case of government it violates its stated purpose so it should be easier to work against

>When you broadly prioritize generating a profit over diplomatic missions and enforcing law, you risk letting those essential goals of government fall to the wayside.

And since government attracts people willing to use violence for personal gain and the private sector attracts people who want to satisfy customers for personal gain, you are agreeing with me that the government should not be run by politicians -- a situation only possible when the government doesn't exist.

>I personally don't want our military fighting as mercenaries for the highest bidder.

This statement is incredibly ironic considering it's described U.S. foreign policy for the last several decades. Even if your visions of how a free market in military defense would work are accurate (who, after all, would voluntarily pay the several trillion dollars the Iraq war cost?), the fact that it would no longer be funded through tax dollars is a substantial improvement.

Dumbass, if a private officer is caught abusing someone, he goes to jail. If a public officer gets caught, he gets paid vacation.

If the laws are correctly made and applied as they should be, you force the megacorps to play fair concurrency and they simply have to keep prices and quality decent if they want to stay in the business.
But no libertarian ever told me how we get that done, they just insist on what we should do after.

You would think that, but the rabbit hole actually goes terribly deep when it comes to government. The Department of Education for example has basically become a massive investment scheme using taxpayer dollars because the people running it have their own motives, and access to the public purse.

It should be easier to work against--but it isn't, precisely because of that attitude: The belief that the government is naturally more beneficent than corporations, when in fact they are both large, soulless organizations driven by the material interests of their constituents.

If your plan is to be more skeptical of government corruption, yes, I applaud you, that's the first step to our ideology, but don't stop there, be skeptical about everything the government does, just as you would be skeptical of a corporation.

>while in the case of government it violates its stated purpose so it should be easier to work against

Hardly. The corporation does not own the largest army on earth and it doesn't run the court system.

An artificial monopoly is a large firm, formed for the purpose of controlling the market, raising prices, and thus reaping monopoly profits in an area where the conditions for natural monopoly do not exist. When the same effect is produced by an agreement among several firms, the group of firms is called a cartel. Since a cartel has most of the
problems of a monopoly in addition to problems of its own, I shall discuss monopolies first. Suppose a monopoly is formed, as was U.S. Steel, by financiers who succeed in buying up many of the existing firms. Assume further that there is no question of a natural monopoly; a firm much smaller than the new monster can produce as efficiently, perhaps even more efficiently. It is commonly argued that the large firm will nonetheless be able to achieve and maintain complete control of the industry. This argument, like many others, depends on the false analogy of market competition to a battle in which the strongest must win. Suppose the monopoly starts with 99 percent of the market and that the remaining 1 percent is held by a single competitor. To make things more dramatic, let me play the role of the competitor.

>Libertarianism isn't anarcho-capitalism. The state should sometimes step in, such as to break up a monopoly, but that doesn't mean the state should actively prop up dying industries and inflict devastating taxes and tariffs on other bussinesses.
>The state should sometimes step in
Well this is the actual problem, as all this "stepping in" business should be voter-requested and\or monitored, which rarely ever happens in practice. Further atomization of society would do little to stop abuse of average Joe.

>WWI
German invested so much in the war because they wanted their share of colonial land to get some tasty ressource for their growing industry.
The brits did it because they were the biggest industrial country and dominated the world this way and Germany was going to have a bigger industrial output.
France was politically unstable as ever but French wanted to slap some German ass.
Russians even went full ape to get industry out of politic.

All the wars are done for business. I could do the same with any other war you cited.

It is argued that the monopoly, being bigger and more powerful, can easily drive me out. In order to do so, the monopoly must cut its price to a level at which I am losing money. But since the monopoly is no more efficient than I am, it is losing just as much money per unit sold. Its resources may be 99 times as great as mine, but it is also losing money ninety-nine times as fast as I am. It is doing worse than that. In order to force me to keep my prices down, the monopoly must be willing to sell to everyone who wants to buy; otherwise unsupplied customers will buy from me at the old price. Since at the new low price customers will want to buy more than before, the monopolist must expand production, thus losing even more money. If the good we produce can be easily stored, the anticipation of future price rises, once our battle is over, will increase present demand still further. Meanwhile, I have more attractive options. I can, if I wish, continue to produce at full capacity and sell at a loss, losing one dollar for every hundred or more lost by the monopoly. Or I may save money by laying off some of my workers, closing down part of my plant, and decreasing production until the monopoly gets tired of wasting its money. What about the situation where the monopoly engages in regional price cutting, taking a loss in the area where I am operating and making it up in other parts of the country? If I am seriously worried about that prospect, I can take the precaution of opening outlets in all his major markets. Even if I do not, the high prices he charges in other areas in order to make up for his losses against me will make those areas very attractive to other new firms. Once they are established, he no longer has a market in which to make up his losses.

Thus the artificial monopoly which tries to use its size to maintain its monopoly is in a sad position, as U.S. Steel, which was formed with 60 percent of total steel production but which now has about 25 percent, found out to its sorrow. It has often been claimed that Rockefeller used such tactics to build Standard Oil, but there seems to be little or no evidence for the charge. Standard Oil officials occasionally tried to use the threat of cutting prices and starting price wars in an attempt to persuade competitors to keep their production down and their prices up. But the competitors understood the logic of the situation better than later historians, as shown by the response, quoted by McGee, of the manager of the Cornplanter Refining Company to such a threat: "Well, I says, 'Mr. Moffett, I am very glad you put it that way, because if it is up to you the only way you can get it [the business] is to cut the market [reduce prices], and if you cut the market I will cut you for 200 miles around, and I will make you sell the stuff,' and I says, 'I don't want a bigger picnic than that; sell it if you want to,' and I bid him good day and left."

Proving his and my point that the government is not a benevolent organization but rather a monopoly of violence and taxation used to generate profit.

The threat never materialized. Indeed it appears, from McGee's evidence, that price cutting more often was started by the small independent firms in an attempt to cut into Standard's market and that many of them were quite successful. Cornplanter's capital grew, in twenty years, from $10,000 to $450,000. As McGee says, commenting on the evidence presented against Standard in the 1911 antitrust case: "It is interesting that most of the ex-Standard employees who testified about Standard's deadly predatory tactics entered the oil business when they left the Standard. They also prospered."
Another strategy, which Rockefeller probably did employ, is to buy out competitors. This is usually cheaper than spending a fortune trying to drive them out—at least, it is cheaper in the short run. The trouble is that people soon realize they can build a new refinery, threaten to drive down prices, and sell out to Rockefeller at a whopping profit. David P. Reighard apparently made a sizable fortune by selling three consecutive refineries to Rockefeller. There was a limit to how many refineries Rockefeller could use. Having built his monopoly by introducing efficient business organization into the petroleum industry, Rockefeller was unable to withstand the competition of able imitators in his later years and failed to maintain his monopoly.

thefreethoughtproject.com/texas-town-sees-61-drop-crime-firing-cops-hiring-private-firm/

And what I forgot to add: Even if those wars were conducted on behalf of the business class, they were ultimately funded through taxation. Maybe the business class would commit some acts of violence if left to their own devices, but not nearly to the "global war" scale that can occur through taxation.

Or you know, since you are 1% of the market, they force the provider to charge you more, the distribution to give you restrictive condition, if you are low on money they send you a lawsuit for bullshit.

There is many way to break competition, even legally.

...

Because logically there is no such thing as a monopoly in a perfect free market as there should be no barriers to entry or exit.

>BUT CHEAPER GOODS AND LOWERED COST OF PRODUCTION WITH FIXED INPUTS!

People will also have odd reasons to buy goods besides price, and goods will become increasingly niche. It's like saying how does the IKEA compete with WEEB LOVE PILLOWS, GET YOUR WAIFU in the market of pillows? Waifu pillows are not exactly equal to bed pillows, even though they could logically be considered competitors.

So... in an absolute free market, there would be fierce competition for every fucktarded possible outlet of sales with a large amount of small sellers as IKEA would not benefit by regearing to sell love pillows.

Any examples of monopolies not supported by the government?

>Shoot a cop
>They burn down your house with you in it

OH WOW

How about the control and issuing of of public contracts to the private sector? How about the lobbying of public policy and industry regulations by private enterprises?

Those things aren't even necessarily bad, but yes, politicians get paid and have ready access to 'economic opportunities' using public organizations.

What you forgot to add:
>Proving his and my point that the government is not a benevolent organization but rather a monopoly of violence and taxation used to generate profit for the corporations.
Getting us rid of the tool won't get us rid of the work. It's human nature you need to change to live in libertarian paradise, and you can't do that. Whatever happen some people will get power over others.

How do statists refute that the State is what enables monopolies?

>you can get rid of the government! Evil globalists and monopolies will rule the world!
and how exactly is this different from our current situation? Governments not only systematically fail to curb monopolies/cronism, but actual make them easier.

>Getting us rid of the tool won't get us rid of the work.

Which is what private security is for, mate. Generally people bring a toolkit, they don't bring one massive wrench that everyone in the country is forced to pay for.

>Whatever happen some people will get power over others.

Therefore we just give up, roll over, and grant all power to a ruling cabal.

> It's human nature you need to change to live in libertarian paradise

The entire crux of my argument this entire time is that human nature is the exact reason why large government is infeasible. If government only works when it's acting benevolently, then the people who comprise it must themselves be benevolent (and infinitely intelligent, but the economic calculation problem is a separate subject). Theory and history shows this is never going to be the case.

Town close to my hometown had a private fire dept. Someone's house was on fire and they didn't come. Chief said that it wouldn't have been cost-effective. Someone died.

:(

Generally if you don't pay for something you don't get service, yes.

Fooking wrekt, m8.

"Gonna need you to swipe your card here before the hoses get turned on"

YA OK BUD

The free market has come up with the ingenious solution of paying ahead of time in case of emergencies. They called it insurance.

Private security don't make you immune to shit, especially if the price asked by shit to not fall on you is lower than the price asked by private security to make it change its course.
Anyway, private security won't lend you one million when you have lawyers to pay to deal with a bullshit lawsuit or some trick of the same kind.

The thing that statists don't seem to grasp is, you don't answer a problem with a catastrophe.
You don't look at the man with a cold and offer to cure him with ebola.

Corporations have problems, no doubt. Cannot at all be refuted or argued against. Corporations, private business, causes problems.
Okay. This is settled. So what's the answer?

>Government!
Whoooooooooooooa whoa whoa mule. WHOA MULE! Hold up. Stop. Cease. Halt. Whoa camel.
That is NOT an answer. That, my dear friends, is a catastrophe. Because, and simply put, every problem caused by corporations is an order of magnitude worse under the state.
Corporations do not have the death toll, torture, famine, war, and economic ruin associated with them that government has. Not even approaching it.
You don't get to answer the problems of corporate failings with the disasters of government control. It doesn't work like that.

If you're going to attack the private sector, answer the problems therein with improvements. Otherwise, fuck off.

Insurance give you back the money you have lost in the fire. To stop the fire, you have to throw water at it. It would be more effective if it was made by professionals who know chemistry, first help, how to cut metal and concrete and are trained to use all the individual protection equipment. In fact, we should have small compagnies of this kind all over the country. Of course we would have to pay them in advance.

Because with few artificial barriers to market entry there is more competition.

So, you prefer to deal with untouchable corporations rather than a government that need to deal with PR?
Apparently, more people prefer the opposite. As a libertarian, do you want to force them to accept your personal preference?

They prefer government because if enough people yell at it, politic will change their action to keep being elected. Good luck making megacorp change what they do without storming them with militias.
Nexon screwed you and you had to deal with it. Less government won't help.

Battle of Athens

What's the difference between libertarian and capitalism?
Trick question. Capitalism is an economic policy while libertarian is a political and economic policy. Many libertarians, myself included, want a strong economy. We also want more freedom. Max freedom, max business, smaller government, less laws. It has a core piece of capitalism in it- the less regulation of business.

If a few number of person control a market, they will create barriers to enter the market.

Try to create and sell OS and see what happen. Bill Gates annihilated the market and now it is locked. Only one outsider managed to get in and it had to be free for that.

An example-
>Walmart is soooo evil! They pay their employees chump change and destroy small businesses!
Okay. Valid criticisms. And they're true. BUUUUUUUUUUT.....

>so lets get the federal government to.....
NO. BZZZZZZZZZT. UH UH. STOP. Right there. You don't get the fucking feds, who have killed orders of magnitude(that's plural) more small businesses than walmart ever has, to tell walmart what to do. That's bullshit. Find another way.

>So, you prefer to deal with untouchable corporations rather than a government that need to deal with PR?
It is far easier to sue a corporation than it is to prosecute a cop when he dicks you in the ass. I guarantee it.
When the government fucks you over, IF they let you sue them, your winnings will be exceedingly hard-fought and minuscule.

People prefer government because they're fucking brainwhipped by the media and 12+ years of education.
If you actually look at the numbers....
It's corporations vs. government...
Low-wages vs. WWII...
Exxon Valdez vs. Agent Orange(the latter causing untold damage to the human genome)...

Give a better fucking answer.
Because right now, it's 250,000,000 dead vs. $7.50 an hour.

replying to you

Monopolies can only exist if there is a government propping it up and defending it by force.

A company in a free market with massive control of a certain specific market isn't a monopoly because competition is still possible, even though it could be unlikely or risky.

A monopoly prevents competition, which can only be done through force.

>libertarian cock.jpg
nice one thanks
>How do libertarians refute the tendence of Capital to create monopolies? Isn't it obvious that the bigger player in a market can wreck any challenger even by selling at a loss?

No, I can see how it looks that way to you, but no. The tendency of Capital to create monopolies is an artifact not of capital but of a certain sort of political system. Given that there is a government with authority to intervene in the market, given that said government is bribable, given that the rate of return on bribes is favorable to other investments, THEN and only then does your conclusion hold.

That is why our goal is and has always been to change those conditions, and thus to change that outcome.

Totally organic, free market monopolies tend to not be too horrible, and only become monopolies because they offer a vastly superior product. It's mostly seen in the minimally regulated tech industry these days, with things like Facebook or Google. Competitors exist, but the value of their products just aren't on the same level as the big guys.

For contrast look at an example of terrible monopolies: cable providers. They have artificial monopolies created by the state, and the market suffers greatly for it.

>libertarian societies having roads

The involvement of Western and Central Europe and of the USA in WWII was because of the banks.
You can't just blame the tool and forgive the hand. Do you want to ban guns because some murders have been made with a gun?

Do you even know who made Agent Orange?

Government force food compagnie to not make poisonous food even if it cut costs, and I can say the same about electrical parts or cars or whatever. Just for that I will die rather than see the fall of all business regulations. The reason capitalism work in the West and not in africa is government regulation.
If you want to compare, add this to the balance. Governments save millions of life every year.

youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

And if there is no government they will just create one. Why do you think we have governments in the first place?

>The involvement of Western and Central Europe and of the USA in WWII was because of the banks.

But who waged the wars in the end? Were Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt CEOs? They were executives, sure. But corporate CEOs?
And, while Dow and Monsanto DID make the rainbow agents that poisoned SE Asia and the human genome, who authorized the program, and for what reason? Has any corporation EVER had the brilliant idea of defoliating tens of millions of acres of jungle?

Government does not get a pass. It is not an answer. Stop it. You cannot with a straight face, knowing the numbers, think government is an answer to corporate bullshit. Not unless you're a psychopath or you completely forget/omit the atrocities committed under the flags of nations.

That's my gripe with statists. You got a problem with corporations. Alright, cool. So do I. Fuckers throttle my bandwidth and raise my subscription cost.
But your answer, government? Oh no no no. Uh uh. Because my cable company has never taxed me, fined me, or otherwise put me in jail.
As bad as it might be with my internet, it's NOTHING compared to the shit government has done.

I just take into account the good think governments did too, like you not dying at 5 from heavy metals in your milk.


Hitler rose in power because banks from London and New York screwed Germany. Then the governments of the UK and USA conveniently tried their best to shut down Germany. You know why France felt so easily? Military strategy is a thing, sure, but we got the same at the beginning of WWI. The real reason is that we were not really opposed at becoming more like Germany and less like the UK. Petain was popular while he was in power.


Simple question: do you know why your government was so opposed to the progression of communism? I give you a tip: corporations are not that clean about wars.

>That image
What road?

>my cable company has never taxed me, fined me, or otherwise put me in jail.
So, you mean, they did not hired a private militia to tax you, fine you or place you in a cage? Why? They would make more money if they do. Is morals stopping them or is it something else?

>like you not dying at 5 from heavy metals in your milk.
I didn't die from heavy metals in my milk at 5 because killing your customers is very bad for business.
Milk producers are willingly producing milk from cows not fed rBST due to the market.
In fact, they're required by the FDA to tell people that the hormones have never been proven dangerous.
Despite the FDA allowing these hormones, the dairy companies are cutting rBST out voluntarily.

Because it's good for business.

>do you know why your government was so opposed to the progression of communism?
An excuse. Plus the cabal of men in government who knew how vile communism is. Doesn't excuse the atrocities committed by the state.
That's not an answer. The numbers tell the story.

>They would make more money if they do.
No they wouldn't. I'd switch to their competitor. That's what you do. Government has no competition like this, so it's a monopoly. Why can't the government fund itself like everyone else is forced to do, through selling a good or service?
They get to legally steal to fund their operations. Why not sell a good or service? They have plenty of goods and services to sell. Why not compete fairly?

>killing your customers is very bad for business.
Yeas, I am sure all the inspections and the laboratories made to test the food are made because governments like to feel powerful.

Megacorps like Monsanto are so respectful of human life even have to infiltrate the governments to we can get their products on our food and they like us so much they don't want us to know if it is the case or not.

>Government has no competition like this
Sometime, they do. It is called a civil war. I like the monopoly better.

>How do libertarians refute the tendence of Capital to create monopolies
are you fucking retarded? the best way to prevent monopolies is free trade between all countries

>And if there is no government they will just create one.
Precisely why we are minarchists rather than anarchists.

Anarchy is great in theory, but until we advance enough to prevent another archy from rising nearly immediately, it's a bad idea in practice.

Better to follow the founders plan and attempt to keep a minarchy bound with the chains of the Constitution.

Think there still may be time to save it?

Because they're still gobbling up good ol' "socialism was invented for the people" meme

Governments don't keep you safe, son.
Liability lawsuits keep you safe.

You wanna see the private sector keeping the public safe?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_(safety_organization)

I can go on. Only thing government does is throw red tape everywhere and cause the whole testing process to slow down and become convoluted.

The government is simply the largest private military contractor in your part of the world and they have set up a defined geographic area under which they will operate and protect their client's interests/enforce client requests.

What now faggot.

Because the states made anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies?

>In 2012, UL transformed from a non-profit company into a for-profit corporation
This is going to end well.
How do they force your milk producer to not have heavy metals on the milk exactly? Do they have guns?

And yet the state is the biggest monopoly. So big in fact that it can fund itself through theft rather than honest business.

>How do they force your milk producer to not have heavy metals on the milk exactly?

Well, not killing your customers and getting a business-killing reputation is one sure-fire way.

What road?

>I understand your ideology better than you do.