Is she right Sup Forums?

Is she right Sup Forums?

Yes, government actually has its uses.

Except monopolies are extremely difficult to be made in the free market and it's usually government regulation that crates the environment for a monopoly.

It was actually Clinton that signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall

Every system can spin out of control, including capitalism. Never assume that because something works it will continue working forever.

What about oligopolies?

No, capitalism is the least of the wests problems. It incentivizes contributions and being a productive peoples.

My issue with Libertarians is that theyre Republicans without the commitment. They dont commit themselves to American culture or ideology, they just wanna smoke pot and shoot guns without the government saying shit. They dont give two fucks about people subverting their country.

Basically theyre special snowflakes. Smart enough to know liberalism is a failed ideology but too pussy to say theyre right wing.

...

No
She has no idea what she's talking about and it's very obvious
She lacks even a basic understanding of American history

Good damn do I hate these champagne socialists

>Your
No she isn't right

They can't be formed if the government has no power over the economy. Aka the free market.

Why not? If I'm the major player in the grocery market, what stops me from just buying all the small competitors and becoming a monopoly?

seriously how do people not know your vs. you're by now?

probably the #1 easiest way to be able to dismiss an argument out of hand

this

This.

What's this bullshit about a monopoly being difficult to form "if the government has no power over the economy"? If business A makes more money than B, but B still makes a sizable deal of money. Perhaps the two would like to become partners to increase profits on both sides. Repeat this indefinitely, and you have a monopoly.

There is so much wrong with this

>Only helping the rich
Who would be helping the rich in an anarcho-capitalist society?

That's not how it works. If business A makes more than business B, and they decide to merge, if they take advantage of their position to make less quality products, a business C can always rise, offering better or cheaper products, thus removing the monopoly the megabusiness AB holds.
This happens frequently when it comes to Coca-Cola, except that their product has visibly more quality than the competition and, in some cases, it's even cheaper.

>if you have a monopoly you become a guild

this isn't world of warcraft nigga

Now lets say business C is immediately bought out by business AB because AB already has a shit ton of money. What now?

kek

Globalist horseshit that American children are indoctrinated with by neoconservatives who would whore their own mothers out for a tax break, let alone allow Jamal to fuck their daughters.

The state is necessary, and without it the internationalists will just make debtors out of every family with communities destroyed by open borders.

>Republicans
>commitment
>ideology

Only Trump, Sessions, and Ron Paul are committed to anything or believe in an ideology.

Business D opens up. The owner of business D is an angry old man who doesn't want to sell his company. Company ABC offers him tons of money to merge but he rejects the offer anyway.

Or

Business Z opens up that offers speciality goods that business ABC can't quite offer without majorly changing the way their business operates. People soon begin to buy more of business Z's products because they enjoy them more, even at a cost premium. Business ABC is now competing directly with Business Z.

Are neoconservatives even conservatives?

If AB's product is not satisfying, a business D will rise. The market always offers you other options. And if it can't, in our current standards of globalization, a foreign company with better products will always come to compete.

Anyway, if Business C is having success on conquering AB's market, why would they sell it?

>a business C can always rise, offering better or cheaper products

Cheaper maybe, but their margins are going to be total shit.

>Business D opens up.
This is an extremely optimistic proposal and is VERY similar to the proposal of socialists that the workers will somehow expect economic leveling. A man will come along who somehow doesn't want money.

>but muh human nature

>Business Z
Business Z can be bought out too.

Literally any time a new business opens it can and will be bought out. An old man who doesn't want to sell his company will die and eventually be replaced by his son who may not sell the company either, but eventually a descendant will come along who wants money. That's even assuming a person like this even exists.

>business D will rise, the market always offers you other options
Not if there is a monopoly on a product. How is a new business supposed to gain traction when a monopoly already exists? Sure it may get as big as AB, but even still a buyout by either side could take place, D may buy out AB or AB may buy out D. Don't give me this "oh but maybe they wont want money" bullshit either. It 's the same premise socialists give, and it's absolute dogshit.

>If business C is having success on conquering AB's market, why would they sell it
You first assume they have achieved success. If they have, they won't sell it and will instead compete with AB. Assuming now that both C and AB have equal market share, why should they not merge to increase profits? We now have business CAB. Assuming C has more market share, it could buy out AB.

Assuming they fail, why wouldn't they sell it?

>your
DROPPED

Anyone who believes in "if we only do it my way the world would be perfect" is either stupid or evil

Then I will happily open businesses E-Y for the sheer purpose of selling them until what was once business A goes bankrupt.

Businesses E through Y are all proxy businesses run by the same person. We will call them collectively business (1). Business (1) now has the monopoly since you run it, despite the illusion of a free market.

>but what if I sell the businesses off

Mergers will continue. Indefinitely. So long as people want money, people will seek it. Of course the market is still technically "free," but it becomes extremely more difficult to start a new businesses without regulation.

I think anime studios are a good example of the free market. There's so many of them and each season a studio competes with others to make the most profitable anime.

Nobody has a monopoly, because the government isn't subsidizing or regulating anyone's ability to create anime.

No

Government regulations and patents is what creates monopolies.

>they just wanna smoke pot and shoot guns without the government saying shit
that is American culture and ideology

The bigger a company grows, the less profit it makes. It has to import more. It has to pay for more employees. It has to hire people that small businesses do not need, such as lawyers, storage workers, negotiators, etc. Small businesses will always rise up to the challenge. That is not to say that large business cannot exist in a free market, but a monopoly that completely exterminates all competitors is impossible in a free market.

Again though, businesses will continue opening indefinitely, so the original business A cannot increase it's prices to abuse the consumers. The result is still the same: The price of goods remain low.

The US once had only one single producer of aluminum. The prices of aluminum were the cheapest they ever where because at it turns out markets don't operate in a vacuum and a lot of stuff has incremental substitution. So even though only one dude make aluminum I might say fuck it and buy wood or steel.

So what if prices are low? At the heart of capitalism is the pursuit of capital gain by the individual, and if the individual can easily be crushed by one larger than himself, then the incentive to innovate is lost.

>bigger company means it has to pay more for employees
Have you not read about 1800s laissez faire capitalism? Unions of workers had to form to demand their wages be raised, because they werent regulated by the government as they are now. Sure small businesses will arise, but they will not gain enough support to sustain themselves. A great example would be the walmart effect: when a walmart enters a town it crushes all small business competition.

Further pertaining to Unions: they themselves form a quasi-economic government that regulates businesses as they see fit in a democratic manner. So what exactly is the difference between unions and the government regulating businesses?

>Implying there was ever anything wrong with guilds

Explain this?

Do you mean the government creates the environment for monopolies through patent/trademark/copyright systems etc?

less regulations on the little guys, less regulations on patents, more regulations on banks and the big guys. look at youtube for example, half of every video you favorite after 3 months gets copyright banned and deleted and disappears down the memory hole.

>So what if prices are low? At the heart of capitalism is the pursuit of capital gain by the individual, and if the individual can easily be crushed by one larger than himself, then the incentive to innovate is lost.

But in every scenario you listed out, every business owner DID make capital gains cause they got their business bought.

>Reagan took these policies away
Kek
>these socialist policies are what made the US so great
Actually government involvement directly caused the great depression to be as bad as it was. And many socialist policies put in by FDR were slapped down. Those that stayed were only able to be supported because America remained one of the only countries with a non fucked up industry after WW2.

if they haven't achieved success, then AB's product is better and/or cheaper. People will buy the product they prefer, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And what's stopping someone from entering the market and underselling them? Are these monopolist going to spend their rest of their lives buying every small box someone sells stuff out of?

A very telling thing about the nature of this is how the death of Standard oil resulted in oil shocks through the country because it's dominant position wasn't kept by buying competitors (at the time of the disbandment, there were hundreds of profitable ones), but rather better products and cheaper prices than their competitors.

This crazy idea a bunch of businessmen can just join their business and everyone will just keep buying from them is the same one politicians have when thinking raising taxes won't make people change their behavior.

1800's was not laissez-faire capitalism. It was extremely close, but it was off in one imortar way: the government persobally supported the big business. They supported Rockefeller and Carnegie, because they felt that it was in the governments best interest to create a surplus of these products. These companies became the closest things to monoplies, because other businesses simply couldn't compete with government backed companies.

>using Walmart effect against laissez faire capitalism
Come on man. I don't want to make fun of you, but how are you going to use that as an argument? America is a heavily regulated capitalism. The walmart effect is actually an argument against regulation.

>businessmen can just join their business

Why do they have to join? If you have a strong business and you're the leader in the market, just meet up with John and Jack, who lead #2 and #3 in your specific market. You don't join together, you just make agreements on a piece of paper backed up by your actions and you price your products the same. A small business who'd want to jump into this new market, will have so much trouble it's likely not going to make it, while your proftiable top 3 or whatever are dominating. There, you got a quasi monpoly.

This is assuming that the business can generate success. In which case, the goal of the individual is not to generate capital gain by his own accord, but to feed the oligopoly / monopoly and gain capital through this means. I suppose the market is still free to an extent, but monopoly still dominates economic affairs.

Monopolies are bad because the corporation can then do as they please with pricing, both in payment and in the price of the actual product itself.

>Are these monopolist going to spend their rest of their lives buying every small box someone sells stuff out of
Why couldn't they? if they will make more money I don't see why they wouldnt.

Okay, so what is stopping an anarchist government from supporting businesses? Again, people are easily corruptible. Further, what's stopping businessmen from entering into the government? Either way, you get fascism-lite.

>how are you going to use that [the walmart effect] as an argument
Small businesses collapse because the big business offers a better product? How does lack of regulation stop this?

Quasi monopoly which ends when entrepreneur from other branch of economy notices massive discrepancy between costs of your products and their price, and then decides to hop in and get his own share of cake.
Or any other scenario where somebody cuts into profit margin quasi monopoly has created

Yes plus companies regulate their own market so much so that anyone interested in entering the business will have to pay a lot more just to enter the market.
For example if there were laws that states your factory must be made with these materials in this way, in these specific locations following these specific rules. You may not purchase the raw materials without doing 10 pages of paper work for each pound. You must file all purchases with governemtn ect ect
Its going to start costing a lot of money to start this business from scratch as compared to someone who was already in the business who had the laws built around their procedures.

>your factory must be made with these materials in this way, in these specific locations following these specific rules

So you'd prefer factories be insulated with asbestos, painted with lead paint, and have no other safety regulations if both are cheaper?

>people will die, so the business will regulate itself

If it is the only business in town, people will work there regardless, so the business still makes money.

>monopolies are bad
not necessarily, and they are unsustainable in a free society anyway
>SO WE SHOULD MAKE A MONOPOLY OF FORCE (govt) TO DECIDE WHAT A MONOPOLY IS AND WHO IS ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE OR NOT

Heh, so if monopolies in the market form because a big corporation simply has a decent enough product, doesn't this just validate the hierarchy of nature? There's much more dumb and weak people (or corporations) and a few will always be at the top, no matter what. Is it pointless to try (either through complete deregulation or the attempt to regulate) and escape this outcome?

Easy. Abolish the individual will and pursue an economic policy of pure collectivism and direct democracy over the course a few hundred years.

>Okay, so what is stopping an anarchist government from supporting businesses? Again, people are easily corruptible. Further, what's stopping businessmen from entering into the government? Either way, you get fascism-lite.
Now you're just arguing for the sake of argument. If any government is corruptible, then what is the point of having this discussion? The only answer, according to what you've just stated, is absolutely no government. That's something I don't believe in, and don't really feel like arguing against. I will say though that the smaller the government, the less likely it is to become corrupt, and the less dangerous it is if it is corrupt.

>Small businesses collapse because the big business offers a better product? How does lack of regulation stop this?
I already explained this. The bigger a business is, the less profit it makes. There will always be small businesses that can compete. This does not mean that big business can't exist. It simply means that monopolies with absolutely no competition can exist.

I can see how some people believe this, but I just don't buy into utilitarianism to begin with, so I can't see myself supporting collectivism therefore. I don't think humans should be treated as means to an end, it's not a society I'd want to live in and bring children into - same reason I'm never moving to an Asian country, no matter how great it looks as a tourist.

People will not spend money on a product they do not want.

If something costs too much, it will not be bought. So, the price goes down or somebody offers a cheaper alternative to replace the original company or force the price down.

In a free market, a monopoly will only form if the product by the monopolising company has the most value for money.

Same user you're responding to, different IP.

The only way prevent corruption is to either make it illegal, i.e. regulate businesses, or alter culture to such an extent that the individual values his community and the common good over himself.

Small businesses will always exist, but without regulation it is harder for them to compete with the larger business. How so? Larger business means more money, more resources to improve, etc. etc. How is a small business supposed to compete and generate better products on a consistent basis when the larger corporation already has the means to out perform them?

Would you rather be a) poor or b) dead?

People won't work in a factory that they know will kill them.

It's not seeing "humans as a means to an end." It's creating pure equality in all forms and senses, giving all individuals equality in rights, giving privileges to none, and valuing all work as a valid means of contribution to society.

we've tried something like that, sonny
'twas shit

No regulation means the corporation doesn't need to tell what products they used to build the factory. People won't know the products in the factory will kill them. So the question then is would you rather die by a) poison or b) starvation from inability to buy food. Don't you love anarchy-capitalism?

Wow. Just wow. Your for you're. Conflating a guild with a monopoly. The state will save us from the state.

Revolutionary communism (i.e. Marxism) is not, in any sense, equal to anarcho-collectivism. Marxism fails because it requires the proletariat to set up a temporary autocratic oligarchy, which ultimately becomes a dictatorship. Anarcho-collectivism must be gradually instituted over the course of a couple hundred years alongside a direct democracy, preventing tyranny.

monopolies are fine if they arent for profit
like what governments sort of do

Sorry, should've specified what I meant.
>valuing all work as a valid means of contribution to society
We tried going in that direction, we really tried.
And it was shit.
Also, how do you decide what should be done in ancol society?
How do you pass that intel to others?

Nothing that you said about businesses bothers me, because classes exist. Degrees exist. In order to understand what black is, you must see white. In order to succeed, you must fail. You can't expect people to not want to be better than each other. It is human nature. However, you're first part does bother me. You can't stop corruption. I've never seen such a strange example of doublethink. You say that people are corruptible, but it is possible to create a world where people aren't corruptible. This is done by forcing them (by people who are corruptible) or brainwashing them into believing that all that matters is the common good (of corruptible people).

Not an AnCap, but people will know what's in the products when they die of it. People will then stop working at a lethal factory, which causes the factory owner to go out of business. Not a wise investment.

That said, I do believe in some roles of state (because I'm not an anarchist, just a minarchist) i.e policing. I also believe that if you're responsible for somebody's death, you should be imprisoned for your crimes. Thus, you have the incentive of staying out of prison to not kill your workers.

Moree regulation means that the bigger corporations can buy the government and have them make debilitating regulations, as is happening with the regulations on ecigs right now.

I will believe that when someone is capable of competing with Google.

Agreed. On top of this, they have absolutely no moral standard. It seems anything can go with drugs and degeneracy, very much similar to liberals.

Coming out of carter presidency ... and she says reagan screwed our country up....

MFW dizzy bitch

how can i simultaneously find libertarianism so appealing, and yet so repulsive?

>2016.
>Not setting taxes to be raised for corporations and big businesses, and pass deregulation for small/medium businesses.
Not only will you stop the true jews, but you'd also be able to create actual employment. A small buisness that's taxed for 45% of their income making $300,000 a year has to give about $150,000 back to the goverment. Then, in my state (NJ) we have somewhere around a 9% tax rate for this fellow. So that totals to $177,000 a year tax. Add in this guy's total expenses for his buisness, it's landing him around $48,000 to give to his employees and suppliers their money. $75,000 dollars a year he brings home. We're thinking of the people though, not this guy alone. Taking away $25,000 won't do anyone any better. What if we have him and everyone else $25,000 dollars back, and bigger businesses in his neighborhood are downsizing rapidly due to this new legislation the goverment passed to help him out? We see mass competing, because someone starts an arms-race between every buisness in the neighborhood by just one getting the que and employing another employee, or providing better service. This doesn't work on big buisness though, because they either outsource or use automation to reduce employees. They still make big, and don't care.

>that is American culture and ideology

No... thats nigger culture greg.

because there are degrees of libertarianism and you (like a sane person) are likely attracted to the moderate (minimal but still existent government) rather than the total anarchist side of it.

>People won't work in a factory that they know will kill them.

No one will know that for sure, and you'd be surprised at people's willingness to risk anything for money. If there opened a factory and people knew it might be dangerous to work there, people would still flock for a job there.

they are literal trotskyists look it up

Yeah, it's called incentive. It's why college kids sign up for the military (free college). The more dangerous a job is, the more you have to pay. Therefore, the company may save on asbestos and lead paint, but they have to pay their workers more in order to incentive them. It balances out.

Yeah, no. The defining theme of exploiting third world labor or illegals is that you can do whatever you want to them. Sholomon Rubashkin had rape rooms at Agriprocessors. Open borders is the same damn thing as worst-case slavery.

No

>A man will come along who somehow doesn't want money.
In his cost benefit analysis he may have found that keeping business D open will net more profit in the long run than the lump sum offered

If the AB conglomerate is continually offering more money to competitors than they are worth, people will intentionally compete just to be bought out and either AB runs out of money, or AB stops overpaying to buyout other companies

Who protects us from government monopolies?

The Supreme Government Council of Earth, of course!

What the fuck just happened? What are you talking about? This is an argument over laissez faire capitalism. It is not about 3rd world countries or open borders.

It was shit because again, they didn't have the cultural shift that was needed for the economic shift. If someone would've instituted capitalism among serfs in the 1100s, it would've failed due to improper cultural conditions. The same applies to any economic system.

People are corruptible when the individual will is present. Abolish the will of one and you abolish his desire to dominate others.

>monopolies are fine if they arent for profit
why would anything not be for profit

are you talking about charities?

Conversely, perhaps the concept of private property should merely be abolished. If the concept of private ownership does not exist, how can one seek more capital for himself, if he cannot conceivably own something for himself to begin with?

Alright, you've gone mental dude. You've gone full blown SJW, wrongthink,1984, on me.
I think this just boils down to what we value more. It seems that you value happiness and prosperity more. I value freedom and independence more. You can't force someone to do something "for the greater good." Just because you are a good tyrant, does not mean you aren't a tyrant.

...

But there is no tyranny. Direct democracy is the key that prevents this. Every individual citizen contributes to the very fabric of society in both economic and political realms.

While she's half right, she's still half wrong

And I'm not an SJW, not in any sense. All of that cultural privatism that SJWS espouse is dogshit and is literally NatSoc masquerading as Liberty: "cultures should he kept separate and should have separate safe spaces." Also there's only two genders and homosexuality / transgenderism are mental illnesses.

>Libertarians are anarchist
>libertarians want no government

Retard alert. Government is a fundamental pillar of a libertarian society.

She is thinking of anarchy.

why are you on someone's private property

there's nothing wrong with what you posted in your picture