Well sorta. It's really using the government to gouge taxpayers. But this is my central point. It is the government and its power to tax (steal) that is being used. Reduce or eliminate that power and Haliburton (et al) has to go out and earn a living by providing valuable products and services to customers that will willingly and voluntarily pay them.
What would happen when corporations become really big to form monopolies when there is no mechanism to curb their behavior? The corporations become the de-facto government.
Look at what happened for example in mining camps at the beginning of the century. They owned the workers and the workers ended up owing more money to the company that they were being paid due to having no other option than buying their goods from one source at extorcionate prices. That also happened in European monarchies (especially in Russia). There the aristocrats owned everything and the masses were effectively land slaves that owed the lords more than they could make off the land that they were renting from the aristocrats. That is one reason the communist ideology flooded many of the monarchist countries in Europe at that time. Russia being the extreme example.
I can easily see a case, when you go for anarchy-capitalism, that it will end up with an extreme form of communism in the end. (Liberalism -> corporate monopoly -> de-facto slavery of the people via extorcionate pricing and debt -> Revolt and redistribution of wealth and property via communism)
Interesting. So tell me how the country would look then.
Out of curiosity, are planning on voting for Gary Johnson?
Also, since that seems like an extreme version of libertarian, tell me how we would thrive in such a country, as all I can ever see at the end of a libertairan utopia is the rich owing us all.
More free and prosperous.
No.
Very well.
I'm sorry (but not surprised) to hear that. Most people have been trained (by State schools) to have rather dystopian views of the world without the State.
What would happen when corporations become really big to form monopolies when there is no mechanism to curb their behavior? The corporations become the de-facto government.
Actually it is the State that creates monopolies. Generally speaking monopolies cannot and do not last without State protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Look at what happened for example in mining camps at the beginning of the century. They owned the workers and the workers ended up owing more money to the company that they were being paid due to having no other option than buying their goods from one source at extorcionate prices. That also happened in European monarchies (especially in Russia). There the aristocrats owned everything and the masses were effectively land slaves that owed the lords more than they could make off the land that they were renting from the aristocrats. That is one reason the communist ideology flooded many of the monarchist countries in Europe at that time. Russia being the extreme example.
I'm not sure what you're referring to in regard to the "mining camps at the beginning of the century." Can you be more specific? As for the others, you are simply referring to other forms (e.g., monarchies) of State suppression, not freedom.
I'm sorry (but not surprised) to hear that. Most people have been trained (by State schools) to have rather dystopian views of the world without the State.
I think myself and the last couple people are asking very similar questions. I've yet to hear from a Libertarian how this could work. With no regulations and no protection from corporate expansion, explain how the world would look where the rich don't own us all?
You do realize btw that government is there to represent us. Now I know in modern times it's become increasingly owned by the rich. But if scaled back and money removed I see a better outlook than one where corporations and the rich can turn us all into slaves.
I asked this before and you didn't respond. What 'Freedoms' do you think you'll have when the rich own the planet, me and you?
Actually it is the State that creates monopolies. Generally speaking monopolies cannot and do not last without State protection.
I'm not sure what you're referring to in regard to the "mining camps at the beginning of the century." Can you be more specific? As for the others, you are simply referring to other forms (e.g., monarchies) of State suppression, not freedom.
A state can create monopolies, but an unrestricted capitalist economy, where companies have no rules to abide by are practically guaranteed to create monopolies (why else would we have anti-monopoly legislation in place practically everywhere?). What you apparently didn't grasp (perhaps being blinded by the concept of a state=bad) is that any unit that has too much unrestricted power, will enslave citizens for their own profit be it a monarchy, dictatorship (a la russian communism for example) or a corporate monopoly.
You see the problem is not with the form (government, corporate or monarchy) per se, it's with human nature and the people in power. They become corrupt and greedy to an extent that has no boundaries if they hold a too powerful position for too long. It's one of the reasons many countries have a limit as to how long a president can stay in office for example. Perfect example of this corruption would probably be robert mugabe, who started out as a intelligent benefactor, but stayed in power for too long. If you look at current successful monarchies, none of them have any real power anymore and are in fact democracies with a head of state to keep the yellow press going.
"mining camps" referred to places like the mines in the UK or the US midwest, where the workers had no choice but to pay rent for their accommodation, buy foods and other goods from the company store etc. This created a local monopoly which in practice enslaved their own workers. I believe this still happens in Africa, where the goverment is not strong enough to regulate it.
Hah. Just as blind an ideological view as the communist had. You're only forgetting the nasty sides of human nature just like the communists did.
If you'd take human nature's bad sides into account, you'd see that your anarchistic-capitalist systems has no chance of working until we as humans evolve a bit further. That should only take some tens of thousands of years at minimum.
I've yet to hear from a Libertarian how this could work. With no regulations and no protection from corporate expansion, explain how the world would look where the rich don't own us all?
What makes you assume they could expand indefinitely and would own us all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
You do realize btw that government is there to represent us.
That's the claim (and maybe even the intent) but it hasn't really worked out that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Now I know in modern times it's become increasingly owned by the rich.
Bingo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
But if scaled back and money removed I see a better outlook than one where corporations and the rich can turn us all into slaves.
How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
I asked this before and you didn't respond. What 'Freedoms' do you think you'll have when the rich own the planet, me and you?
A state can create monopolies, but an unrestricted capitalist economy, where companies have no rules to abide by are practically guaranteed to create monopolies
How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
why else would we have anti-monopoly legislation in place practically everywhere?
So less successful competitors can use the State to hamstring their more successful competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
What you apparently didn't grasp (perhaps being blinded by the concept of a state=bad) is that any unit that has too much unrestricted power, will enslave citizens for their own profit be it a monarchy, dictatorship (a la russian communism for example) or a corporate monopoly.
What you have not demonstrated is how, in a free market, these enslaving corporate monopolies would come about and persist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
You see the problem is not with the form (government, corporate or monarchy) per se, it's with human nature and the people in power. They become corrupt and greedy to an extent that has no boundaries if they hold a too powerful position for too long. It's one of the reasons many countries have a limit as to how long a president can stay in office for example.
Agreed. And the State is the entity that is "given" more power than any other and thus attracts the very people who lust for power and are corrupted by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
BTW: Did you watch the TED talk? It should give you some proof that goverment isn't all that bad.
Not yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Now could you in turn provide an example of a case where an anarchist-capitalist system actually works or didn't work?
Hah. Just as blind an ideological view as the communist had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
You're only forgetting the nasty sides of human nature just like the communists did.
Not at all. I'm just saying that if it is as widespread as you seem to think it is, the last thing you want to do is create some entity (the State) that has a monopoly on the use of force. That would be bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
If you'd take human nature's bad sides into account, you'd see that your anarchistic-capitalist systems has no chance of working until we as humans evolve a bit further.
If you take human nature's bad sides into account, you'd see that creating an entity that is given a monopoly in the use of force will turn out badly.
So less successful competitors can use the State to hamstring their more successful competitors.
Hmm. So you are saying that all the antitrust lawsuits pushed by governments against uncompetitive practices of companies in a commandeering or otherwise powerful role are bad for competition? Or did I get your gist wrong somehow?
Look for example at the Intel case where they denied processors to companies that wanted to use the cheaper and faster (thus better) processors. Is that bad legislation? If it isn't, how would you do that without a state?
What makes you assume they could expand indefinitely and would own us all?
That's the claim (and maybe even the intent) but it hasn't really worked out that way.
Bingo!
How?
I reject you're premise that they can or will.
This is what is happening. The rich will own us all, regardless of whether they just keep throwing money at our politicians or not. At least with government on our side and fighting we have a chance.
Your idea that corporation will self-reguate have been proven not to work. Leek at where we are. Look at the stock market. We are living the proof that corporations will destroy the planet and buy the country. I completely agree with the other poster.
Did you say you're voting for gary johnson? I know it's not Mitt, who 100% bought and paid for and wants to create even bigger gov't- right?
Hmm. So you are saying that all the antitrust lawsuits pushed by governments against uncompetitive practices of companies in a commandeering or otherwise powerful role are bad for competition? Or did I get your gist wrong somehow?
What I'm saying is that the history shows that State anti-"monopoly" action has been at the behest of less successful competitors in an attempt to tear down a more successful competitor.
In other words: Less successful competitors use the State as a bully against the alleged "anti-competitive" actions of their more successful competitors because they we unable to compete on their own.
So, yes, it is bad for competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Look for example at the Intel case where they denied processors to companies that wanted to use the cheaper and faster (thus better) processors. Is that bad legislation? If it isn't, how would you do that without a state?
I'm not familiar enough with the instance you're referring to to be able to comment on it.
The rich will own us all, regardless of whether they just keep throwing money at our politicians or not.
Unproven claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
At least with government on our side and fighting we have a chance.
You don't even seem to notice the irony in what you're saying. You're saying the rich and the corporations own the government, but the government is "on our side" and somehow protecting us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Your idea that corporation will self-reguate have been proven not to work.
No one claimed that they would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Did you say you're voting for gary johnson? I know it's not Mitt, who 100% bought and paid for and wants to create even bigger gov't- right?
Not voting for either. Don't even know if GJ is on the ballot in my state anyway. Romney is a crony capitalist, big government Keynesian. I'm not optimistic about the futur eno matter who wins today.
So the bottom line here is that Intel said they would not sell their processors to some companies that also bought processors from a competitor. Is that basically it?
Did the author bother to ask a CPA how to read the financial statement?. Total book taxes is not the same as what the company paid in taxes for the fiscal year?
So the bottom line here is that Intel said they would not sell their processors to some companies that also bought processors from a competitor. Is that basically it?
Yes. Basically a practical monopoly tried to limit end user choice to be able to buy a better product at a cheaper price. So they acted as a market entry barrier.
Yes. Basically a practical monopoly tried to limit end user choice to be able to buy a better product at a cheaper price. So they acted as a market entry barrier.
Your characterization aside, I don't see a problem. If a company doesn't want to sell their product to another or put conditions on the sale of that product, they should be free to do that. No one is compelled to accept those terms.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Well sorta. It's really using the government to gouge taxpayers. But this is my central point. It is the government and its power to tax (steal) that is being used. Reduce or eliminate that power and Haliburton (et al) has to go out and earn a living by providing valuable products and services to customers that will willingly and voluntarily pay them.
What would happen when corporations become really big to form monopolies when there is no mechanism to curb their behavior? The corporations become the de-facto government.
Look at what happened for example in mining camps at the beginning of the century. They owned the workers and the workers ended up owing more money to the company that they were being paid due to having no other option than buying their goods from one source at extorcionate prices. That also happened in European monarchies (especially in Russia). There the aristocrats owned everything and the masses were effectively land slaves that owed the lords more than they could make off the land that they were renting from the aristocrats. That is one reason the communist ideology flooded many of the monarchist countries in Europe at that time. Russia being the extreme example.
I can easily see a case, when you go for anarchy-capitalism, that it will end up with an extreme form of communism in the end. (Liberalism -> corporate monopoly -> de-facto slavery of the people via extorcionate pricing and debt -> Revolt and redistribution of wealth and property via communism)
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Interesting. So tell me how the country would look then.
Out of curiosity, are planning on voting for Gary Johnson?
Also, since that seems like an extreme version of libertarian, tell me how we would thrive in such a country, as all I can ever see at the end of a libertairan utopia is the rich owing us all.
More free and prosperous.
No.
Very well.
I'm sorry (but not surprised) to hear that. Most people have been trained (by State schools) to have rather dystopian views of the world without the State.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
What would happen when corporations become really big to form monopolies when there is no mechanism to curb their behavior? The corporations become the de-facto government.
Actually it is the State that creates monopolies. Generally speaking monopolies cannot and do not last without State protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Look at what happened for example in mining camps at the beginning of the century. They owned the workers and the workers ended up owing more money to the company that they were being paid due to having no other option than buying their goods from one source at extorcionate prices. That also happened in European monarchies (especially in Russia). There the aristocrats owned everything and the masses were effectively land slaves that owed the lords more than they could make off the land that they were renting from the aristocrats. That is one reason the communist ideology flooded many of the monarchist countries in Europe at that time. Russia being the extreme example.
I'm not sure what you're referring to in regard to the "mining camps at the beginning of the century." Can you be more specific? As for the others, you are simply referring to other forms (e.g., monarchies) of State suppression, not freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
More free and prosperous.
No.
Very well.
I'm sorry (but not surprised) to hear that. Most people have been trained (by State schools) to have rather dystopian views of the world without the State.
I think myself and the last couple people are asking very similar questions. I've yet to hear from a Libertarian how this could work. With no regulations and no protection from corporate expansion, explain how the world would look where the rich don't own us all?
You do realize btw that government is there to represent us. Now I know in modern times it's become increasingly owned by the rich. But if scaled back and money removed I see a better outlook than one where corporations and the rich can turn us all into slaves.
I asked this before and you didn't respond. What 'Freedoms' do you think you'll have when the rich own the planet, me and you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Actually it is the State that creates monopolies. Generally speaking monopolies cannot and do not last without State protection.
I'm not sure what you're referring to in regard to the "mining camps at the beginning of the century." Can you be more specific? As for the others, you are simply referring to other forms (e.g., monarchies) of State suppression, not freedom.
A state can create monopolies, but an unrestricted capitalist economy, where companies have no rules to abide by are practically guaranteed to create monopolies (why else would we have anti-monopoly legislation in place practically everywhere?). What you apparently didn't grasp (perhaps being blinded by the concept of a state=bad) is that any unit that has too much unrestricted power, will enslave citizens for their own profit be it a monarchy, dictatorship (a la russian communism for example) or a corporate monopoly.
You see the problem is not with the form (government, corporate or monarchy) per se, it's with human nature and the people in power. They become corrupt and greedy to an extent that has no boundaries if they hold a too powerful position for too long. It's one of the reasons many countries have a limit as to how long a president can stay in office for example. Perfect example of this corruption would probably be robert mugabe, who started out as a intelligent benefactor, but stayed in power for too long. If you look at current successful monarchies, none of them have any real power anymore and are in fact democracies with a head of state to keep the yellow press going.
"mining camps" referred to places like the mines in the UK or the US midwest, where the workers had no choice but to pay rent for their accommodation, buy foods and other goods from the company store etc. This created a local monopoly which in practice enslaved their own workers. I believe this still happens in Africa, where the goverment is not strong enough to regulate it.
But you wanted an example: http://www.heritage.nf.ca/society/company_towns.html is a quick one I found. Read the second paragraph.
BTW: Did you watch the TED talk? It should give you some proof that goverment isn't all that bad.
Now could you in turn provide an example of a case where an anarchist-capitalist system actually works or didn't work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
More free and prosperous.
Hah. Just as blind an ideological view as the communist had. You're only forgetting the nasty sides of human nature just like the communists did.
If you'd take human nature's bad sides into account, you'd see that your anarchistic-capitalist systems has no chance of working until we as humans evolve a bit further. That should only take some tens of thousands of years at minimum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
I've yet to hear from a Libertarian how this could work. With no regulations and no protection from corporate expansion, explain how the world would look where the rich don't own us all?
What makes you assume they could expand indefinitely and would own us all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
You do realize btw that government is there to represent us.
That's the claim (and maybe even the intent) but it hasn't really worked out that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Now I know in modern times it's become increasingly owned by the rich.
Bingo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
But if scaled back and money removed I see a better outlook than one where corporations and the rich can turn us all into slaves.
How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
I asked this before and you didn't respond. What 'Freedoms' do you think you'll have when the rich own the planet, me and you?
I reject you're premise that they can or will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
A state can create monopolies, but an unrestricted capitalist economy, where companies have no rules to abide by are practically guaranteed to create monopolies
How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
why else would we have anti-monopoly legislation in place practically everywhere?
So less successful competitors can use the State to hamstring their more successful competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
What you apparently didn't grasp (perhaps being blinded by the concept of a state=bad) is that any unit that has too much unrestricted power, will enslave citizens for their own profit be it a monarchy, dictatorship (a la russian communism for example) or a corporate monopoly.
What you have not demonstrated is how, in a free market, these enslaving corporate monopolies would come about and persist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
You see the problem is not with the form (government, corporate or monarchy) per se, it's with human nature and the people in power. They become corrupt and greedy to an extent that has no boundaries if they hold a too powerful position for too long. It's one of the reasons many countries have a limit as to how long a president can stay in office for example.
Agreed. And the State is the entity that is "given" more power than any other and thus attracts the very people who lust for power and are corrupted by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
BTW: Did you watch the TED talk? It should give you some proof that goverment isn't all that bad.
Not yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Now could you in turn provide an example of a case where an anarchist-capitalist system actually works or didn't work?
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Hah. Just as blind an ideological view as the communist had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
You're only forgetting the nasty sides of human nature just like the communists did.
Not at all. I'm just saying that if it is as widespread as you seem to think it is, the last thing you want to do is create some entity (the State) that has a monopoly on the use of force. That would be bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
If you'd take human nature's bad sides into account, you'd see that your anarchistic-capitalist systems has no chance of working until we as humans evolve a bit further.
If you take human nature's bad sides into account, you'd see that creating an entity that is given a monopoly in the use of force will turn out badly.
Quote:
So less successful competitors can use the State to hamstring their more successful competitors.
Hmm. So you are saying that all the antitrust lawsuits pushed by governments against uncompetitive practices of companies in a commandeering or otherwise powerful role are bad for competition? Or did I get your gist wrong somehow?
Look for example at the Intel case where they denied processors to companies that wanted to use the cheaper and faster (thus better) processors. Is that bad legislation? If it isn't, how would you do that without a state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
What makes you assume they could expand indefinitely and would own us all?
That's the claim (and maybe even the intent) but it hasn't really worked out that way.
Bingo!
How?
I reject you're premise that they can or will.
This is what is happening. The rich will own us all, regardless of whether they just keep throwing money at our politicians or not. At least with government on our side and fighting we have a chance.
Your idea that corporation will self-reguate have been proven not to work. Leek at where we are. Look at the stock market. We are living the proof that corporations will destroy the planet and buy the country. I completely agree with the other poster.
Did you say you're voting for gary johnson? I know it's not Mitt, who 100% bought and paid for and wants to create even bigger gov't- right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Hmm. So you are saying that all the antitrust lawsuits pushed by governments against uncompetitive practices of companies in a commandeering or otherwise powerful role are bad for competition? Or did I get your gist wrong somehow?
What I'm saying is that the history shows that State anti-"monopoly" action has been at the behest of less successful competitors in an attempt to tear down a more successful competitor.
In other words: Less successful competitors use the State as a bully against the alleged "anti-competitive" actions of their more successful competitors because they we unable to compete on their own.
So, yes, it is bad for competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Look for example at the Intel case where they denied processors to companies that wanted to use the cheaper and faster (thus better) processors. Is that bad legislation? If it isn't, how would you do that without a state?
I'm not familiar enough with the instance you're referring to to be able to comment on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
If you take human nature's bad sides into account, you'd see that creating an entity that is given a monopoly in the use of force will turn out badly.
It very often does, but it doesn't have to be if done properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
This is what is happening.
What is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
The rich will own us all, regardless of whether they just keep throwing money at our politicians or not.
Unproven claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
At least with government on our side and fighting we have a chance.
You don't even seem to notice the irony in what you're saying. You're saying the rich and the corporations own the government, but the government is "on our side" and somehow protecting us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Your idea that corporation will self-reguate have been proven not to work.
No one claimed that they would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Did you say you're voting for gary johnson? I know it's not Mitt, who 100% bought and paid for and wants to create even bigger gov't- right?
Not voting for either. Don't even know if GJ is on the ballot in my state anyway. Romney is a crony capitalist, big government Keynesian. I'm not optimistic about the futur eno matter who wins today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
It very often does, but it doesn't have to be if done properly.
Well, you'll let me know when it's done properly won't you.
Quote:
I'm not familiar enough with the instance you're referring to to be able to comment on it.
My bad, I left out the name of the other company: AMD.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/intel-tentatively-settles-ftc-antitrust-suit/
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
My bad, I left out the name of the other company: AMD.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/intel-tentatively-settles-ftc-antitrust-suit/
So the bottom line here is that Intel said they would not sell their processors to some companies that also bought processors from a competitor. Is that basically it?
Did the author bother to ask a CPA how to read the financial statement?. Total book taxes is not the same as what the company paid in taxes for the fiscal year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
So the bottom line here is that Intel said they would not sell their processors to some companies that also bought processors from a competitor. Is that basically it?
Yes. Basically a practical monopoly tried to limit end user choice to be able to buy a better product at a cheaper price. So they acted as a market entry barrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Yes. Basically a practical monopoly tried to limit end user choice to be able to buy a better product at a cheaper price. So they acted as a market entry barrier.
Your characterization aside, I don't see a problem. If a company doesn't want to sell their product to another or put conditions on the sale of that product, they should be free to do that. No one is compelled to accept those terms.