/liberty/ - Liberty

>If the free market is left unregulated long enough it ceases to be a free market as the big players squeeze out the smaller ones.

lol so someone is better, someone wins and someone loses. If someone's business fails, it's not a fault of the free market. He doesn't have a right to have his business, and he does not deserve it. A business is held up by the products it produces and sells. If that goes awry, then it's the business' own fault, not it's competitors'.

If I learn how the play the Piano amazingly well in two years, while you still struggle with chords, your failure is not my fault.

Why are you so afraid?

>A cartel or a monopoly than sets prices with no concern for supply and demand.

how would that even happen?

>Thoughts?

>>>/readabook/

>>>/leftypol/

This is addressed in just about every thread there is. Lurk moar.

>>14797

then quit the job.

And stop spamming threads, like

>>14798

All these threads are going to vanish when infinity next comes up, because this board is already archived.

Plus, are you the same guy who kept spamming /objectivism/?

>>14802

The banner changes to "THIS BOARD IS BEYOND THE EVENT HORIZON" after it has been archived. This thread is safe.

I want to believe you're sincere, so apologies if you might have gotten a bad impression. I'll try to answer your inquiries as best I can.

>>14793

>If the free market is left unregulated long enough it ceases to be a free market as the big players squeeze out the smaller ones

How do you know this will happen? On that note, if a monopoly (or bi/tripoly) were to form (theoretically) a free market make it so that if any of those few big companies fuck up big time or try to pull some massive kikery, other businesses can start up and take their place.

>A cartel or a monopoly than sets prices with no concern for supply and demand

Even in monopolies S&D are incredibly important for optimization of labor and profit.

>>14797

>Because I don't want to work 18 hour shifts in an unsafe environment

Neither do I. Thankfully, with the amount of competition generated by laissez faire, companies that offer workers a decent wage and work environment will have a greater portion of the labor force and be more successful than their more exploitative rivals. That, and they realize that for maximum profit well-rested workers who aren't starving are far more efficient.

>I don't want to pay rent to the company for the tools I use for my job while being forbidden to use my own

You can start your own business very easily then. Back in the 1900s, where the market was a lot freer than it was today, the majority of Americans were self-employed.

Hell, why stop there? Start a company where each of the workers are shareholders and have a say in decisions.

>>14793

>If the free market is left unregulated long enough it ceases to be a free market as the big players squeeze out the smaller ones.

If this does happen then it was you the consumer who paid to give the big buys their monopoly. If government didn't propel them to monopolization, you did.

>A cartel or a monopoly than sets prices with no concern for supply and demand.

Why would there be only three or four businesses? And if they do fuck up in business, their monopoly would be gone because people like you and me would stop buying from them.

>>14811

DId you read the link to the history of company towns in coal mining?

That was during laissez faire capitalist America.

>>14824

>but you don't want to limit what your boss can do to you.

If your boss does treat you like shit then why the fuck are you still working for them? Why are they the only business available in this society? And it's better than working for a fucking workers commune for free.

>>14827

>And it's better than working for a fucking workers commune for free.

And getting an apple shoved up your ass is better than have a cactus shoved up your ass.

Still, I'd really like to pass on both of those options.

How does having some laws about what your boss can do to you and not do you go to full communism?

Do you want them to repeal the old progressive era laws so Walmart can start paying you with Walmart bucks that can only be spent at Walmart?

>>14829

>And getting an apple shoved up your ass is better than have a cactus shoved up your ass.

This is the thing about leftists. What kind of economic conditions are we talking about here? Industrial Revolution conditions? Before that? Modern Capitalism? What economic conditions are we talking about because this is never clarified.

>Still, I'd really like to pass on both of those options.

Oh but you'd love to work for free with you and your comrades, wouldn't you?

>How does having some laws about what your boss can do to you and not do you go to full communism?

I won't answer this until you give me what kind of economic conditions your type of capitalism is under right now.

>Walmart can start paying you with Walmart bucks that can only be spent at Walmart?

Why do you think modern Walmart has a monopoly, anyway?

>>14829

Because chances are my definition and your definition of capitalism are quite different.

>>14824

>limits on the power of the elites

>goverment

Ayy lmao

>>14838

>being this big of an autist

>>14793

>Thoughts?

Only that you have no idea how economics work, and these fears have been addressed in scholarly sources and on this board exhaustively, innumerable times, and that if you don't know why these things are impossible, then it's up to you to educate yourself.

>>14829

>How does having some laws about what your boss can do to you and not do you go to full communism?

You can't enact these laws without a government with the power to enact them. Practical consequence is they won't have many limits as to how they can regulate businesses. Couple that with the fact they have no plan either, and you got yourself a bunch of failed law students in parliament and government who will proceed to kill uprising, innovative businesses while protecting larger, corrupt firms that have an army of lobbyists at their disposal.

I haven't even touched on the deontological arguments here, mind you. From a consequentialist viewpoint, having a government to regulate businesses is shitty enough.

>>14884

>le only one company is available in a free market maymay

Kill yourself.

>>14884

>Like hell I don't! You have a choice of either sucking my dick or going overboard, you can voluntarily do either!

Implied contracts are a thing. If you ask someone if he wants a ride in your boat, without demanding a counterperformance, you imply that there is no expectation of counterperformance. If you then demand a counterperformance on your boat, the person has the contractual right to stay on the boat. If you shove him off, you violate the terms of the contract. In this particular case, that would also constitute murder.

>>14895

Don't you have started a separate thread on this, too?

>>14903

Yes. I have mentioned the company towns with monopolies in another thread.

I guess this is your way of admitting that exploitive monopolies can and have occurred in the absence of government regulations.

>>14809

>job market is not infinite

this can only be true if demand is finite.

>>14895

not a good example since these town properties were chartered by the state and workers were contractually required to use only company stores.

>>14914

black markets prevent government-chartered companies from being monopolies, so why are you worried they will form in a free market?

>>14906

>If you don't refute the same argument you have already refuted in another thread, that means you're conceding to it

Nope, you disingenious bum.

>>14914

Cartels run into the same problems monopolies do, namely diseconomies of scale. They are also unstable. It's funny how you guys believe that everyone would constantly fuck everyone else over in a free market, except the big corporations who would apparently cooperate perfectly well with each other, all the time, and never fuck anyone over to get themselves a larger share of the cake.

Then there's the fact that, without a government to make creating a business insanely hard, creating a startup-firm is actually possible. Definitely for larger, richer corporations that want to enter new markets, but an Average Joe might do it too, after acquiring and saving enough capital.

>>14917

Got a link to this argument being refuted?

Do you prove that the company towns didn't fuck over people or something?

>>14915

>the black market will provide energy, cars, houses, iron and other heavy industry goods

>>14924

>muh saved money should be able to start any new industry!

>muh income will remain same under lasseiz-faire capitalism!

>muh median and mean

kill yourself

>>14921

I have no idea where that thread is now, and I don't see why I should prove that I won the discussion in this thread, while you sit here being a smug cunt and pretend that it was totally you who #REKT the libertardayncrapians. You're a lazy cunt, and I don't like doing extra work for lazy cunts.

Here's what I remember: We had a discussion about this topic, exchanged arguments for a couple posts, then you stopped addressing any of my arguments and instead posted the link in this thread. The higher standard of living in the gilded age, compared to prior times? You never addressed that. The fact that it totally was regulated? You never addressed that, either. The big corporations being actively supported by the government? You never addressed that.

>>14924

>Implying I didn't say he "might" do it, as opposed to he "CAN" do it

>Implying the average person can't get bank loans

>Implying the average person wouldn't have higher real wages if the government didn't seize his property

>Implying inflation wouldn't get less severe without the fed

>Implying the average person can't work on getting a much better job so he can save more money up

>Implying the average person wouldn't be able to work a seventy-hour week, if he really wanted to

>Implying two or more average persons can't work together to start a new enterprise

The most interesting thing about this post is that it shows how many assumptions you make wh

>>14924

Could you have picked a worse industry as your example? You know that Henry Ford failed miserably at first and had to declare bankruptcy not once but twice, right? Innovations typically come from small businesses, not big ones.

>>14948

I posted a few links myself, here:

>>14954

Can't see you addressing them. Maybe because it's hard to follow two parallel threads addressing the same topic, but then again, this is exactly what you wanted, so I'm not exactly feeling bad for you.

Your ignorance in this discussion is astonishing. You post links to how the gilded age suck, supposedly to reinforce your point, but we're lucky if you even address what's in them. This is often a sign of laziness, and it seems to be in your case, too. Instead of summing an article up, you post it in its entirety and expect us to do a line-by-line critique on it, apparently.

The reason why we don't usually post sources is because the benefits of doing that are often not worth even the twenty seconds it'd take us to find the right article on mises.org or look up the right page in For a new Liberty, a book that's full of footnotes, by the way, but which nevertheless no statist ever took the trouble of even skimming through before declaring that libertarians cited no sources.

>ur indoctrinated

I was studying law before I became an anarchocapitalist. I have seen the insides of a court before I ever even heard of Rothbard or Mises. A bunch of my arguments are stuff I came up with based on what I learned during my studies of law and criminology. I base my thesis that an anarchist society would not necessarily experience a surge of crime off the theories of Reckless, Hirschi and Merton, and the experiments performed by Göppinger. None of these people have been libertarians. How, then, was I indoctrinated? The only indoctrination I ever experienced was reading a theatre from Berthold Brecht with a blatant communist message, without any critical thought being given to it, and hearing a teacher tell us that implementing socialism is a good idea sometimes.

>>14957

I don't see any links in this thread except the ones I have posted..unless you consider this to be a link:

>>>/leftypol/

and the links to the abuses of the glided age support my argument because they led to the government regulations put in place during the Progressive Era.

Regulations that you would remove, and which probably would result in someone buying beef preserved with formaldehyde with company script.

>>14960

Okay. How dense are you?

>and the links to the abuses of the glided age support my argument because they led to the government regulations put in place during the Progressive Era.

You mean, the abuses of the gilded age perpetrated by a government that was clearly in bed with the corporations? You act like it was the corporations that did all the abuse. That wasn't the case. I bet more than a few acts of violence were started, without provocation, by leftists, because leftists always do shit like that. Then there were the acts of violence perpetrated by the very government that had the one job of preventing shit like that. Somehow, you draw from this that corporations are inherently evil, but not that the government is prone to lying in bed with these corporations and helping them whenever the mechanisms of the free market would make them fail. They do this even now. Big banks are regularly bailed out. Big corporations are subsidized. There's a fuckton of anecdotes of small businesses being crushed by paperwork. And you still maintain that the government is not to blame for anything that goes wrong with the economy?

>Regulations that you would remove, and which probably would result in someone buying beef preserved with formaldehyde with company script.

Funny you mention that. Did you know that the government poisoned alcohol during the prohibition era?

https://sites.psu.edu/shivensblog/2014/02/20/fbi-poisoning-alcohol-during-prohibition/

Can you name even a single atrocity committed by a corporation that was not committed by the overblown government idiots like you want to have?

>>14963

It's pretty disingenious (notice a pattern here?) to first attack the credibility and reputation of the person you're talking to and then invoke the argumentum ad verecundiam when said person defends his credibility and reputation. You said I was indoctrinated. I explained to you why I am not, namely because I am surrounded 24/7 by statists, have studied the way of thinking of statists and had serious aspirations of joining their ranks. It's not like I was an uneducated idiot who grabbed a copy of Practical Anarchy before joining a ranch filled with ancaps all practicing Free Love.

>>14963

Anyway, to come back to what you said about food regulations: You simply don't need regulation in this case. Regulation would have a two-fold effect, in this case. One, it would sanction you putting formaldehyde in your beef. You do know that selling beef preserved with formaldehyde would be attempted murder, though, right? It would not even be manslaughter, it'd be premediated murder. If someone could prove your beef poisoned him, you'd be fucking tried for murder. You already are sanctioned for bullshit like that.

Second, the regulation would most likely create a monitoring instance that would watch over what kind of shit you put in the food. Awesome!… except why the hell do you think that there would not be an institution in a free market that would do exactly that? And why do you think that a government agency would do a better job than any agent in a free market? This is a baseless assumption. An enterprise in a free market is incentivized to make their customers happy, by doing a good job, first and foremost.

Government agencies, on the other hand, get further funding when their current funds are deemed to be insufficient to fulfill their job. What this means is that they are incentivized to do a shitty job, being just competent enough not to have their entire upper echelon assigned to Alaska (and not even that, if the upper echelon is fun at parties). This is basic logic and psychology. Now refute it.

>>14964

>Can you name even a single atrocity committed by a corporation that was not committed by the overblown government idiots like you want to have?

You are presenting a false dichotomy here.

We don't have to choose between an utter free for all or Big Brother.

Surely we can find a nice middle ground, and have some sensible laws while still having free enterprise.

>>14968

>You do know that selling beef preserved with formaldehyde would be attempted murder, though, right? It would not even be manslaughter, it'd be premediated murder. If someone could prove your beef poisoned him, you'd be fucking tried for murder

During the Spanish American War the military was sold beef preserved with formaldehyde.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_beef_scandal

None of the suppliers were charged with attempted murder, or anything at all.

nearly a decade later the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed.

enterprise in a free market is incentivized to make their customers happy, by doing a good job, first and foremost.

Not really,, the first goal is to make money, and if I cheat you in such a way that you don't notice and attribute your stomach problems to something else, you're a satisfied customer

http://www.chinausedcookingoil.com/indnews/2015/0916/28.html

I'd like something more than Caveat emptor.

Yes.. bureaucracies have some problems and it is sometimes difficult to measure their job performance, but we don't just shut it all down and eat dog meat cooked with gutter oil.

And if we had maintained the old investment banking regulations put in place by F.D.R. the saving and loan crash wouldn't have happened and they wouldn't have been that Billion dollar bailout.

>>14979

>Surely we can find a nice middle ground, and have some sensible laws while still having free enterprise.

You're implicitly assuming that you "we" can find this middle ground. Finding it is up to a bunch of populistic 60 year old failed law students, though, not you and me. All we can do is vote for a representative, maybe also a president, depending on the country, and that's it. And then we must hope he does his job right. You don't write a nice state on paper and then it's magically implemented.

Now, mind you I'm not touching on the deontological arguments here. This is just the first hurdle.

>>14980

>None of the suppliers were charged with attempted murder, or anything at all.

Despite the state courts being neutral? Damn, it's almost like they were in bed with the corporations or something.

>Not really,, the first goal is to make money, and if I cheat you in such a way that you don't notice and attribute your stomach problems to something else, you're a satisfied customer

Good luck with no one finding out, especially in an age of social networks. And also, doesn't that apply to government agencies, too?

>gutter oil

China is a shithole, and not exactly the epitome of a free market.

>Yes.. bureaucracies have some problems and it is sometimes difficult to measure their job performance, but we don't just shut it all down and eat dog meat cooked with gutter oil.

Thanks for ignoring everything I've just said. The problem lies not just in measuring their job performance, the problem is that agencies have a fucking incentive to do a poor job. Yet they are paid handsomely, money that would be better invested if you let customers decide which food review company to support. I ask you again: Why do you think that a company would do a worse job inspecting food than a government agency?

>>14922

the black market has actually provided these