/liberty/ - Liberty

>How about if a market gets over a 50% share in a market concerning food, water, electricity, fuel, or raw resources, it's property is no longer valid, and we all go in and force them to split up the company?

doesnt work because CARTELS

and no, not the mexican ones

>>16074

Whut?

>>16082

lets say 5 companies that together own 75% of the market for a group and impose the same prices, same regulations same wages and so on

since there is private property and voluntary hierarchy, they dont have to let people know what they are doing and people can't complain about it, because they voluntarily bought the products

they effectively own a monopoly and in the case of competitors being able to get ahead of them they can always offer cheaper goods because they own most of the market share

however if you think about the way of how economics work right now, this artel could also buy this competitor buy buying its stocks and so on

the problem is even bigger when you consider they can control the market in whatever way they want, since they indirectly own most of the market they can let one of them get ahead of the group and let people belive they have a big number of options

the only way to stop corporations from causing such harm is to make all of their meetings, testing of products, accounting and so on public, so that we can realize there is a cartel in the making or that they prove they dont really own a monopoly, even in the case they actually had a monopoly, a transparent administration would probably stop said monopoly from violating the NAP and common law, most of the libertarians I have argueed with agree with this answer, however if you are letting people know what you are doing then its probable that they will have the right to decide over the company, even in an indirect manner like getting sued because the population doesnt agree with said policy and so on, so you might aswell call it some weird variant of market socialism

the amount of market share owned doesnt really matter, if how the corporation administers it

>>16083

>>16083

>>16083

>>16083

>lets say 5 companies that together own 75% of the market for a group and impose the same prices, same regulations same wages and so on

THEN EVERY COMPANY HAS AN INCENTIVE TO BREAK RANKS, DESTROY THEIR COMPETITOR'S GOOD WILL, AND DESTROY ITS BIGGEST COMPETITORS

So at the least they'll have like a month of very limited competition. Implicit competition is always there, though.

>>16087

>DESTROY THEIR COMPETITOR'S GOOD WILL,

to elaborate, destroy public opinion

>>16087

>>16088

t.someone who does not understand how cartels works

>>16091

tip: You can't just scream muh cartels muh cartels muh collusion. You have to qualify how a cartel can develop i.e why there are monopolistic conditions in a given market in the first place.

Cartels rarely form in real markets and when they do, they form in markets with few and well established actors, and also very high barriers to entry. The petroleum industry is the case example. The reason for this is because the maximum price the cartel can charge can never exceed the cost of entry for a new entrant. As soon as the cartel tries to extract insane profits, they get sniped.

Think. If establishing a cartel was competitive or easy, most capitalists would enter into them and we'd be living in a very different world right now. We aren't. Even the most famous cartel in history, OPEC, is today a joke.

glad to hear that you're studying your micro :)

>>16072

>However, even if you believe this is true it shouldn't be an article of faith, and you should have a contingency plan.

How about if a market gets over a 50% share in a market concerning food, water, electricity, fuel, or raw resources, it's property is no longer valid, and we all go in and force them to split up the company? Not if it's a local market, but if it's a big business getting an over 50% share in an important primary sector market or food purveryor, so that covers the primary sector, and only a narrow section of the secondary sector (food, whereas agri is primary sector production). >Apart from that, the secondary and tertiary sector aren't vital enough to survival to worry about business monopolies creating the same inefficiencies as the state without breaking the NAP. In fact the argument for the NAP starts to break down under these hypothetical conditions.

anti-trust legislation is hella controversial

I'm not sure whether it is right to still claim the label libertarian after that but yeah. It's a normal view among capitalists.

Big business is inherently unlibertarian since it relies on government subsidies to stay afloat, anon.

>>16098

what is capital accumulation

>>16098

>muh subjective words

>>16072

LETS PUNISH PEOPLE FOR SUCCESS

literally cancer

>>16094

>I'm not sure whether it is right to still claim the label libertarian after that but yeah. It's a normal view among capitalists.

Let's get rid of all regulation possible except the people working together to put down an overwhelming monopoly based on a strict principle of size isn't a normal view among capitalist view.

My proposal is highly libertarian. It's just not full Ancap.

I would argue that it's more stateless though, since it stops private companies becoming de facto states through their market share.

>>16115

>LETS PUNISH PEOPLE FOR SUCCESS

It's not to do with success. It's about having a monopoly like the state did.

>>16115

God might be dead, but entrepreneurs are like angels descended to Earth.

>>16104

>capital accumulation

What are failed investments

>>16115

Big business is inherently unlibertarian. Corporations rely on government subsidies to stay afloat because they suffer from the central authority problem.

>>16104

>>16131

Or to put it more accurately, a lot of the major giants of 50 years ago, and tech giants of 10 years ago, have become nearly irrelevant. Intel was on the verge of collapse a decade or so ago. You just only remember the successful ones.

>>16093

>cartels are impossible

>nevermind the fact that we have had cartels on literally all industries

>culprit of most of the shittiest capitalist practices today

https://vimeo.com/109014324

we don't have cartels because the state has laws againts them, dumb fuck

>>16131

>>16133

They collapse because the state.

>>16135

>cartels are impossible

No, don't twist my words. I said cartels can't exist indefinitely in a competitive market. If cartels were impossible, none have never existed.

>nevermind the fact that we have had cartels on literally all industries

sure, whatever you say.

>culprit of most of the shittiest capitalist practices today

>https://vimeo.com/109014324

Like what? Anticapitalist hysteria is no substitute for evidence. I want cases not cheap pinko skits.

>we don't have cartels because the state has laws againts them, dumb fuck

There was no need for those laws until industrialisation and the attendant trade licenses, custom unions and intellectual property laws that came with it. In a competitive market, cartels can't form. They can form in other markets, that's why anti-trust legislation exists. The first of these laws in the US were in response to the nascent rail industry.

>>16145

If your right to private property can be revoked because you've accumulated an arbitrary amount of capital then you don't have private property. Let's get that straight. Natural rights don't come with preconditions.

For all your anti-corporate sophistry,what you describe is just anarcho-socialism with no consistency. You want an authority that can claim wealth that is allegedly ill-gotten ("a million miles away", not "justified"). If you control too much of a market, your property will be revoked. If you make money from financial products, your property will be revoked. If hold too much capital, your property will be revoked.

I'd be less critical if you merely wanted a tax or a share of profits you don't like (that's regular leftism), but like a communist you actually question the capitalist's right to possess what his investment produced. So it turns out that your "distributism" is not really not centrist at all. It's just anarcho-socialism by another name. It's left, it's red, it's radical and it's ugly. Like usual, it won't work and will do much to contribute to human misery.

>>16169

none could have ever existed*

rewrote the sentence

>>16169

> I said cartels can't exist indefinitely in a competitive market. If cartels were impossible, none have never existed.

but they can, the fact that the goverment has law againts this proves it

>sure, whatever you say.

im going to make a compilation of all the cartels we have had faggot brb

>>16171

>but they can, the fact that the goverment has law againts this proves it

Seriously?

>>16169

>If your right to private property can be revoked because you've accumulated an arbitrary amount of capital then you don't have private property.

By that logic, we already live under communism. That's not how private property works.

>Let's get that straight. Natural rights don't come with preconditions.

There's your problem. Natural rights don't exist. You have to actually defend rights with force.

Private property is something that is vital for society to function, and so as a community we should respect and protect it.

>For all your anti-corporate sophistry,what you describe is just anarcho-socialism with no consistency.

Nope. Actually learn what "socialism" means. People with a third or centrist position always get this though.

If I went to /leftypol/ and made the same post, you must realize that they'd be calling me a capitalist.

>You want an authority that can claim wealth that is allegedly ill-gotten

Yes, but the authority is the people. Do you think private property defense under Ancap doesn't involve authority and force? There's no standing government enforcing this.

90% of the time this society would be identical to Ancap. It's just that it can save itself from crisis and redirect people from actual socialism.

>I'd be less critical if you merely wanted a tax or a share of profits you don't like (that's regular leftism)

Why? Regular leftism parasites off production constantly and ceaselessly.

Anarcho-Distributism would only mean that if a monopoly or oligopoly took hold that started impoverishing people, and Ancaps were wrong about market competition destroying them, we'd have a safety valve that could smash the oligopoly and split it up again, resulting in more competitive units. Competition is good. Stagnancy and stasis is bad.

>but like a communist you actually question the capitalist's right to possess what his investment produced.

Woah. Hang on. Goldman Sachs and Citigroup didn't purely produce their wealth. It's ill-gotten through repeated violations of the NAP, and what amounts to corporatism. If they were allowed to exist after the state were defeated, that wouldn't be right.

Furthermore, I'm willing to let market forces work with new companies that reach that status, but if that persists and impoverishes people, then that is the clear red line.

Besides, people will revolt anyway if a small oligopoly charged ridiculous prices for basic items and tried to grind people. The difference with Anarcho-Distributism is that gives a clear ideological justification for tackling those specific properties without harming private property at large. You'll get the same protestors you get now if people become too poor under Ancap. Anarcho-Distributism just targets the parts of the market where competition has actually stopped, and targets those, making people understand that it's not private property itself, but the conversion of private ownership into a monopolistic monarchy like entity.

Where competition stops, the state begins, so it's pro-competition!

It's nothing like communism. You don't understand what communism is I suspect. It's not just about redistribution, but about destroying property and the market, and abolishing them.

Distributism doesn't abolish private property; it spreads it out. It's nothing like communism, which seeks to create a monopoly whereby all the means of production are owned by an abstract entity called "society".

Distributism's clear principle is antimonopolism, but communism is just a gigantic monopoly, even in its anarchistic federated forms that are supposed to be stateless.

>>16175

>>16169

Look at the end of the day, I just want you to stop taking a certain thing on faith, and have a contingency plan.

As I said in the OP:

>Now, Austrian economics says that a harmful monopoly can never last in a truly free market, since if they jack up prices to earn superprofits, a competitor will enter the market and be able to undercut them.

>However, even if you believe this is true it shouldn't be an article of faith, and you should have a contingency plan.

Distributism is that contingency plan. Ancap doesn't have one. You can try Ancap, but when it just produces a de facto state that market competition can't remove, I want you to consider that contingency. At least it's there as an option. Remember, the commies have different ideas to spread if things go to pot.

>>16172

of course faggot, we have had cartels fucking everywhere, people like you dont understand how economy of scale helps cartel keep their profits

>>16203

lol eksdee

I understand that it's hard to make a cutoff point where companies are teh evil, and below that they should be completely free.

There's a much better metric though. Base it on collaboration. Companies like Facebook are collaborating with the government in order to remove information off their platform. It's not some decision made due to market forces in general, but because the German and Israeli governments are telling Facebook to do this.

Any big corp or bank that gets government subsidies should be raided on the day of the revolution and treat the same as government owned stuff, and given up to its occupiers as property.

>>16175

>By that logic, we already live under communism. That's not how private property works.

When property is expropriated by the social-liberal state, a person's right to property isn't what's being challenged. They're being sanctioned of their property, i.e. what's theirs is being taken away. You on the other hand question their right to processes what the monopolist has made in the first place. In effect, this difference might be slight but it's economic and philosophical significance is huge.

>There's your problem. Natural rights don't exist. You have to actually defend rights with force.

All it means they have to be enforced before they have effect. Qualified freedoms aren't meaningful freedoms. There is no more a qualified right to capital than there is a qualified right to free speech or a qualified right to freedom of assembly.

>Nope. Actually learn what "socialism" means.

Marxists would call it no private ownership of any of the means of production. What do you have? Qualified private ownership of the means of production. You see private ownership of the means of production as something we should fear and be protected from. The standard socialist assumptions about capital are there, you just aren't consistent in your application.

>People with a third or centrist position always get this though.

No, socialists mascaraing as what they are not get this. The world would be a nicer place if socialists were universally frank about their politics. Rather, they call themselves liberals, nationalists, democrats, anarcho-distributists, etc.

>Yes, but the authority is the people. Do you think private property defense under Ancap doesn't involve authority and force? There's no standing government enforcing this. 90% of the time this society would be identical to Ancap. It's just that it can save itself from crisis and redirect people from actual socialism.

When the popular will of a sovereign people is expressed exacted by the authority of the sovereign people, you have an expression of popular government. You have a monopoly and "the people" break it up. You have a factory and "the people" take it into their hands. "The people" never government. Funny that.

>Why? Regular leftism parasites off production constantly and ceaselessly.

Whereas your leftism 'parasites' inconsistently and arbitrarily? What a rare display of honesty.

>Anarcho-Distributism would only mean that if a monopoly or oligopoly took hold that started impoverishing people, and Ancaps were wrong about market competition destroying them, we'd have a safety valve that could smash the oligopoly and split it up again, resulting in more competitive units. Competition is good. Stagnancy and stasis is bad.

Honest people will call this regulation, something commonly regarded as a central function of state. It's not unique to "Anarcho"-Distributism but that's not all Anarcho-Distributism entails in respects to capitalism though, is it?

>Woah. Hang on. Goldman Sachs and Citigroup didn't purely produce their wealth. It's ill-gotten through repeated violations of the NAP, and what amounts to corporatism. If they were allowed to exist after the state were defeated, that wouldn't be right.

They produced much of it. Liberal capitalists don't speak of allowing firms to exist. If your faith in the free market is as you say it is ("90% of the time this society would be identical to Ancap") then Goldman Sachs and Citigroup wouldn't be sustainable as they currently exist. After revolution, they would fall victim to market forces, not mobs of red guards.

>>16175

>Furthermore, I'm willing to let market forces work with new companies that reach that status, but if that persists and impoverishes people, then that is the clear red line.

>Besides, people will revolt anyway if a small oligopoly charged ridiculous prices for basic items and tried to grind people. The difference with Anarcho-Distributism is that gives a clear ideological justification for tackling those specific properties without harming private property at large. You'll get the same protestors you get now if people become too poor under Ancap. Anarcho-Distributism just targets the parts of the market where competition has actually stopped, and targets those, making people understand that it's not private property itself, but the conversion of private ownership into a monopolistic monarchy like entity.

>Where competition stops, the state begins, so it's pro-competition!

>It's nothing like communism. You don't understand what communism is I suspect. It's not just about redistribution, but about destroying property and the market, and abolishing them.

>Distributism doesn't abolish private property; it spreads it out. It's nothing like communism, which seeks to create a monopoly whereby all the means of production are owned by an.

>Distributism's clear principle is antimonopolism, but communism is just a gigantic monopoly, even in its anarchistic federated forms that are supposed to be stateless.

I'll play it to you simple then. Your system is about destroying property selectively. You've given a fine argument against the free market and for market regulation but that's not the issue.

Distributism's cardinal principles are social justice and social order. It's from here its opposition to liberal capitalism comes.

And I said you were like a communism, not *you are a communist*.

You share the same false socialist assumptions about capital and the competitive market.

Regulation is not all your platform is about, it's not even half. It's very dishonest to pretend that that's all we're buying into.