Libertarian Purity Test

[Berzerker]

GP - I don't speak/read that language. To the legible part of your question, no.

Mad Bomber -

Your model of a functional monopoly is flawed.

I was unaware I offered a model, just common sense.

Since a monopoly by definition coerces or forces competitors out of business.

And the nature of this coercion/force? If it's selling a product for less, that isn't coercion or force.

The problem is not that there are no people wishing to enter the market, the problem is that monoplies uses scales of economy to drive out competitition usually by driving prices down to the point where only the monopoly can continue in the market.

And lower prices are to be condemned?

Once competition has been suppressed or eliminated, the prices are jacked up through the roof.

At which point consumers get angry and competitors re-emerge.

When this happens, what are the choices for the customer?

To boycott the monopolist, produce themselves, go without the product, or seek the service/product from competitors.

The only choice is to buy from the monopoly or to not buy from the monoploly.

See above.

If this were to take place across the entire economy you would end up with a communist system.

Then why didn't this happen in the US prior to the anti-trust laws? You guys can talk theory all you want, I'll look at history. There is something wrong with what you guys are telling me, if it was true, there would have been nothing but "perpetual" monopolies throughout the US for it's first 120 years or so.

[Mad Bomber]

Then why didn't this happen in the US prior to the anti-trust laws? You guys can talk theory all you want, I'll look at history. There is something wrong with what you guys are telling me, if it was true, there would have been nothing but "perpetual" monopolies throughout the US for it's first 120 years or so.

The monoploy is only possible with large economies of scale, e.g corporations. The reason that monoplies did not exist before was because no one could maintain market dominance. This changed when the first corporations were developed. Look at the examples of monoplies: US Steel, Carnagie Oil, JP Morgan, Microsoft, Bell Telephones, et al. They all have roots in the corporation, because the corporation revolutionized business. Gone were the days when anyone could open shop and enter a market with a corner store. The corporation means that you must invest in a market, you must develop capital. If it were so easy to enter the oil market in 1900 wouldn't you think that everyone would? Why are their not more than 2 operating systems used in most PC's today? Because entering a market in a capitalist economy means that you must invest in that enterprise. And if a corporation has enough money to control the economic conditions of a market, then there is in effect no competition.

[SnowFire]

Once competition has been suppressed or eliminated, the prices are jacked up through the roof

Except they're not. First of all, true monopolies are very rare. Even back in robber baron days, if the railroad got too outrageous, there always was a horse & coach. Can you name a monopoly that's existed in the past 100 years that wasn't due to government intervention? And I mean all forms of competition, now (just because you have a "monopoly" on pistachio ice cream doesn't mean you have a monopoly on ice cream itself, let alone desserts).
Secondly, if this monopoly does exist... actually using its monopoly power is signing its own death warrant. Isn't it obvious what's going on if they jack up their prices? Won't people be massively upset and demand the government to put the corporation in line? Even if there currently are no anti-trust laws, fear of them being put into place in response to egregious actions still exists. And never mind the political angle, assuming people are still free to start up competitors, they will.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I was wondering, how do you pay for government workers if you are against taxes.

[Berzerker]

LoA - (good movie) I'm not opposed to taxes, just forced taxation. The Continental Congress and the American Revolution were funded via lotteries and voluntary donations. And user fees do not violate our freedom, I believe we deserve the government we are willing to pay for, not the government we can buy with stolen money.

Mad Bomber - modern corporations have government protections we don't have. When a corporation violates the law, it is usually fined. When a corporation pollutes, it is fined. If people running corporations actually went to jail, they wouldn't be pulling most of the stunts they do now with government protection. And the courts are complicit in this corruption. Did you know the tobacco companies have yet to pay out one dollar in private lawsuits even though they have lost cases (not that they should be sued)? We don't have a market-based system, so pointing to modern corporations as proof of long term monopolies is problematic. Btw, your examples aren't valid, Microsoft is not a long term monopoly (if it is in fact a monopoly) and the older examples did not exist in a free market nor do modern corps, those corporations lobbied Congress to impose tariffs on foreign competitors. A free market cannot have tariffs to protect producers. Bell telephone was another government created monopoly as are many utilities now. Even the railroads were given huge subsidies in exchange for creating the railway system. The anti-trust laws were, ironically, a populist revolt against the creation and government protection of corporations.

[Mad Bomber]

modern corporations have government protections we don't have. When a corporation violates the law, it is usually fined. When a corporation pollutes, it is fined. If people running corporations actually went to jail, they wouldn't be pulling most of the stunts they do now with government protection.

couldn't agree wih you more that corporate leaders should be held legally responsible for misdeeds, however, you must make an act illegal before they can be prosecuted, hence the need for government intervention. You could argue that the intervention is not strong enough, but instead you argue that the courts are the cause of the corruption. That is just wacked. You do have some logic in your arguments regarding the railroads and the utility systems but their subsidies and the creation of monoplies is done in order for the public good. These systems in turn are regulated by their respective governments to help curb the price abuses inherent in any monopoly. As for Microsoft, who exactly are they competing against? Oracle, Linux? Microsoft has a 90% share in operating systems for PC's, including Mac;s. I think that they do qualify as a monopoly.

and the older examples did not exist in a free market nor do modern corps, those corporations lobbied Congress to impose tariffs on foreign competitors.

Of course a monoploy cannot exist in a true free market economy. The problem is that a true free market economy doesn't exist, and has never existed. However, Monopolies do exist and I have given you examples of them as you requested.

[David Floyd]

Berzerker brought up a good point. I see little problem with using a national lottery as a revenue raiser.

[TCO]

WTF!!!

The only reason that government lotteries make money is that they are monopolies. you can actually get BETTER odds in the illegal numbers game than in a state lottery.

If you have a state lottery with private lotteries, the state lottery will get crushed. Guess again, Mitty!

[H Tower]

16, just a stones throw from not even being a softcore libertarian

[David Floyd]

The only reason that government lotteries make money is that they are monopolies. you can actually get BETTER odds in the illegal numbers game than in a state lottery.

Don't see your point. Lotteries can serve as a lucrative revenue machine, and at the same time are totally voluntary. I fail to see the problem with them.

[Berzerker]

Mad Bomber -

couldn't agree wih you more that corporate leaders should be held legally responsible for misdeeds, however, you must make an act illegal before they can be prosecuted, hence the need for government intervention.

And? Is there a problem with government punishing crooks and polluters? Certainly not from a free market perspective...

You could argue that the intervention is not strong enough, but instead you argue that the courts are the cause of the corruption.

I did argue the intervention was not strong enough so I don't know where you got that bit about me blaming only the courts (which I said were also complicit, not the only cause). Besides, the courts are nothing more than a product of the government that is already lenient with corporate crooks. But that's the nature of government, the powerful seeking safer ways of using power over others without retaliation.

That is just wacked.

Even if we accepted your strawman as factual, why are the courts exempt from this corruption? Ever try suing a corporation?

You do have some logic in your arguments regarding the railroads and the utility systems but their subsidies and the creation of monoplies is done in order for the public good.

One man's "public good" is another man's evil.

These systems in turn are regulated by their respective governments to help curb the price abuses inherent in any monopoly.

Price abuses are not inherent to a monopoly, but feel free to make my case for me.

As for Microsoft, who exactly are they competing against? Oracle, Linux? Microsoft has a 90% share in operating systems for PC's, including Mac;s. I think that they do qualify as a monopoly.

So what? How long has Microsoft had that level of marketshare? We are debating if monopolies are short or long term, not if they have ever existed.

Of course a monoploy cannot exist in a true free market economy.

I suspect your definition of a free market economy differs from mine. Why can't a monopoly exist in a free market? And why are you now making this assertion when it serves to better affirm my argument that free market monopolies can only exist in the short term, not in the long term as you argued?

The problem is that a true free market economy doesn't exist, and has never existed.

That isn't true, free markets have existed, just not often and less often as governments grow. But how does this help your argument?

However, Monopolies do exist and I have given you examples of them as you requested.

I didn't ask for examples of monopolies, I asked for examples of long term monopolies that existed without government protection. You're changing the issue we were debating.

GP -

WTF!!!

The only reason that government lotteries make money is that they are monopolies. you can actually get BETTER odds in the illegal numbers game than in a state lottery.

We have a state lottery here and people don't have to travel very far for legalised gambling. Lotteries were used to fund the American Revolution and gambling was legal all over the place. If you had the choice between a lottery to help fund government services, why would you seek a private lottery that did not?

If you have a state lottery with private lotteries, the state lottery will get crushed. Guess again, Mitty!

Why?

[Rex Little]

Only 97. I must be mellowing in my old age.

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Don't see your point. Lotteries can serve as a lucrative revenue machine, and at the same time are totally voluntary. I fail to see the problem with them.

Dave, Isn't it wrong for the state to prevent private individuals from buying or selling private lottery?

Berz, There is competition accross state lines (one reason why states get together). If private lotteries were authorized the state lottery would have to be competetive. And wouldn't make much money. People who want to donate money to the government can do that independently of a lottery.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker




Why?

competition. States prevent independent lotteries for the same reason that they prevent independent letter delivery.

[TCO]

Hey Rex, I am at 1754 (purple) on Pogo. Kinda scary as I am not really an expert.