Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/corporate-contradictions-neoliberalism/

Or perhaps more accurately, "corporatism".

Interesting read, that argues each corporation is a mini state, getting it's authority from a state sanctioned charter, and the shareholders paying into a socialized thing that no single person (Or group of people) own.

Would love if the business savvy among us could take a look and speak their mind.

Nah that's bullshit, the principles of capitalism are private property and consent. These corporations are built upon the voluntary participation of its constituents and customers, as well as transactions based on private ownership on property, not at all resembling the state coercively and backed at the point of force taking your money and distributing as it sees fit.

Additionally, a capitalist economy is set by market factors in a free market whereas socialism artificially organizes this shit.

At a very important point of principle and structure the two are completely different, as well as in their productivity. Capitalism generates wealth, whereas socialism generates poverty.

You don't need to be particularly business savvy or extremely proficient with economic theory to recognize it it's pretty on the surface stuff.

Socialism just plain needs to be snuffed out of existence.

Marxism needs to be treated like Naziism in the realm of civil discourse.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Marxism needs to be treated like Naziism in the realm of civil discourse.

It's going to be hard when they are the ones so often shouting about nazis.

Sargon put it pretty well when arguing with an Antifa leader ranting about fascism:
"Yeah but who cares what you think you're a communist! Your body count is ten times higher, who gives a **** about what you have to say?!"

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Sargon put it pretty well when arguing with an Antifa leader ranting about fascism:
"Yeah but who cares what you think you're a communist! Your body count is ten times higher, who gives a **** about what you have to say?!"

Lol that was f*cking hilarious.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Capitalism generates wealth, whereas socialism generates poverty.


I know you're 1st year college guy and you're all 'classic liberal free-market' edgelording yourself out until you're blue in the face and that's cool, you do that. Just a part of growing.

But do you really think it's that cut and dry, black and white? Cos Capitalism doesn't work without the upwards movement of money from the have-less to the have-mores, which as an effect creates poverty. Look at it this way, if everyone where a billionaire, the world wouldn't function. Not that capitalism is inherently a bad thing mind you.

As far as socialism creating poverty as an absolute statement. Norway is considered a socialist country. It's doing pretty well for itself. As are several other of the Scandinavian and European countries. So it seems like socialism can and does work, in certain settings.

2nd year college student my dude

I'll hit you up on the other points when I have more time if DarthSkywalker0 doesn't beat me to it.

Please excuse my error and in case you took that first part the wrong way, it wasn't an insult.

No worries, can wait. Honestly, no interest in reading a word-quilt from the gish galloper.

Originally posted by Robtard
Please excuse my error and in case you took that first part the wrong way, it wasn't an insult.

No worries, can wait. Honestly, no interest in reading a word-quilt from the gish galloper.


When have I ever made falsified arguments, strawman, and outright lies?

Capitalism is not socialism, but socialism is the end-game of capitalism. Eventually the free-market fails as the most successful companies devour the lesser ones and instill monopolies, at which point the exchange of currency for products/services ceases to be voluntary and becomes coercion-based. ISP's are a good example. Company gets big -> eats the surrounding companies -> uses its insane wealth to fund laws that make it harder for other companies to compete -> free market collapses and individuals are forced to pay that company for its services as the alternative is lacking a vital resource that's basically mandatory to be successful in the modern world.

No one is a Comcast customer by choice.

^ If you said anything that contradicts something I've said, then you're wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ If you said anything that contradicts something I've said, then you're wrong.

You claimed that the Nordic countries were socialist and implied that socialist policies have led to their success. Neither of those statements is true.

capitalism has become socialism for the wealthy.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
capitalism has become socialism for the wealthy.

*corporatism

Corporatism is foregone conclusion of the free market.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
You claimed that the Nordic countries were socialist

He said they're considered socialist. What is considered "socialist" today, i.e what most people refer to when they say they support socialism, is primarily capitalist integrated w/ socialist programs. Much in the same way that actual socialism (state-controlled economy) is what most people call "communism," even though communism is supposed to be stateless.

Regardless, the point DarthSkywalker0 was making and providing evidence for in his post is that their economic success is derived from their past economic freedom and economic freedom in the present, and in spite of the economic policies that would be considered socialist.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
No, it can't. None of the countries mentioned are socialist economies. Let us look at the Economic Freedom Index. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are each less than one point away from the US in regards to economic freedom. What makes this funnier is that each of these countries economies are less regulated then the U.S. they are just brought down by their welfare and taxation states. This is the Nordic success story. All of the Nordic countries had a higher life expectancy. If we delve into Sweden and Denmark's history, we realize why their economy flourishes despite their high taxes and the welfare state. I am specifically focusing on Sweden, but nigh all of what I am about to say applies to Denmark. Sweden's period of affluence took place between 1850 to 1950. During this period, Sweden the average Swedish income multiplied eightfold, while population doubled. Infant mortality fell from 15 to 2 percent, and average life expectancy rose an incredible 28 years. In 1950, Sweden had lower taxes and a smaller public sector than the U.S. and the rest of Europe. The Social Democrats finally took control in the 50s, and while they slightly raised taxes, the significant increases did not transpire until 1970. Since 1950, Sweden has gone from 7 to 19 in GDP per capita. But unfortunately, wasteful spending and poor economic policies nipped Sweden in the bud. The average growth rate was halved to 2 percent in the 1970s, declining further in the 1980s, and that was before the big crisis in the 1990s. In 1990, the year before a serious economic crisis in Sweden, private enterprise had not created a single net job since 1950. They luckily cut social spending and freed up the economy which helped them recover.

High tax rates and generous welfare benefits discouraged investment and subsidized indolence. Very few of Sweden's most prominent companies were created post-1970. In 2000 just one of the 50 biggest Swedish enterprises was founded after 1970. To quote Johan Nordberg,



How do you create a small fortune? You start with a big one. Sweden is using past money generated from capitalism and keeping their economy free to fund a massive welfare state. This applies to both Norway and Denmark.

Damn, good stuff.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
He said they're considered socialist. What is considered "socialist" today, i.e what most people refer to when they say they support socialism, is primarily capitalist integrated w/ socialist programs. Much in the same way that actual socialism (state-controlled economy) is what most people call "communism," even though communism is supposed to be stateless.

^ Bingo

Originally posted by Surtur
Socialism just plain needs to be snuffed out of existence. Hah! This is one of the best posts in recent memory. "Kill Socialism", says a man who survives entirely on a social welfare program. Without influence from socialism, your libertarian capitalist paradise would leave you dead in the street.

Originally posted by Scribble
Hah! This is one of the best posts in recent memory. "Kill Socialism", says a man who survives entirely on a social welfare program. Without influence from socialism, your libertarian capitalist paradise would leave you dead in the street.

Except I don't survive entirely on it lol. Yes, socialism needs to go.

Originally posted by Scribble
Hah! This is one of the best posts in recent memory. "Kill Socialism", says a man who survives entirely on a social welfare program. Without influence from socialism, your libertarian capitalist paradise would leave you dead in the street.

Bingo.

Originally posted by Surtur
Except I don't survive entirely on it lol. Yes, socialism needs to go. What else do you survive on, if not social welfare? If all socialism-related programs and laws were removed from the US, the standard of living would plummet and the death toll would rise dramatically. And would the wealthy provide alternatives? No, make your own money, leech.

Social programs, appropriated from socialist government types, have improved American life, as they have improved all countries where they've been implemented. I mean, you just don't seem to understand what 'socialism' entails, other than "it bad and gotta go because fascism" or... something? I'm not really clear why you think it needs to go, especially when without it, you probably wouldn't have anywhere to live, unless you have rich parents.

Originally posted by Scribble
What else do you survive on, if not social welfare? If all socialism-related programs and laws were removed from the US, the standard of living would plummet and the death toll would rise dramatically. And would the wealthy provide alternatives? No, make your own money, leech.

Social programs, appropriated from socialist government types, have improved American life, as they have improved all countries where they've been implemented. I mean, you just don't seem to understand what 'socialism' entails, other than "it bad and gotta go because fascism" or... something? I'm not really clear why you think it needs to go, especially when without it, you probably wouldn't have anywhere to live, unless you have rich parents.

I never said get rid of social programs lol. Sp is there a point to your rant?

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said get rid of social programs lol. Sp is there a point to your rant? So, you want to scrub all of socialism from the face of the earth, but you want to keep the social programs? Which are like, a part of socialist theory and practice?

Also please, that was hardly a rant. A rant has to either be three full-size paragraphs or one big wall of text. That was neither.

Surtur and his general ignorance got nailed to the wall. That happened.

Originally posted by Scribble
So, you want to scrub all of socialism from the face of the earth, but you want to keep the social programs? Which are like, a part of socialist theory and practice?

Also please, that was hardly a rant. A rant has to either be three full-size paragraphs or one big wall of text. That was neither.

I think you're taking it far too literally lol.

So when you said "Socialism just plain needs to be snuffed out of existence", what you meant was, "I disagree with many core tenets of socialism, in particular hard socialism, but its affect on western society has also brought many benefits, some of which I myself rely on and I am thankful for these", correct? Because you could have just... said that.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Capitalism is not socialism, but socialism is the end-game of capitalism. Eventually the free-market fails as the most successful companies devour the lesser ones and instill monopolies, at which point the exchange of currency for products/services ceases to be voluntary and becomes coercion-based. ISP's are a good example. Company gets big -> eats the surrounding companies -> uses its insane wealth to fund laws that make it harder for other companies to compete -> free market collapses and individuals are forced to pay that company for its services as the alternative is lacking a vital resource that's basically mandatory to be successful in the modern world.

No one is a Comcast customer by choice. Good point

The GDP per capita of Sweden developed as well as that of the US since the 60s

http://i66.tinypic.com/2zi78di.png

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Corporatism is foregone conclusion of the free market. A pretty unavoidable truth, unfortunately. The corporatist relationship between business and state is ultimately symbiotic and sought by both parties. From a enterprise's very beginnings, the state guarantees the private property of the business, and has the monopoly on force to enforce those rights against those with competing claims. In return, the business provides tax revenues and help keep the people content through employment. As a business grows larger, they accrue more leverage, and can extract subsidies and aid from the government, which will generally be all too happy to provide it to them. This mutualistic relationship is why corporations will, when forced to choose between potentially no government and an authoritarian government, will pick the latter. This was seen in the Spanish Civil War, when the landed and business owners rallied around the fascist Franco, who although extremely authoritarian preserved the corporatist relationship and private property.

Now, anti-corruption measures to take corporate money out of the political sphere can alleviate this issue to a great extent, so we can still keep both capitalism and government. But a 'true capitalist' system in which none have unfair advantages and in which corporatism is finally quashed isn't feasible.

i completely agree

Originally posted by lazybones
A pretty unavoidable truth, unfortunately. The corporatist relationship between business and state is ultimately symbiotic and sought by both parties. From a enterprise's very beginnings, the state guarantees the private property of the business, and has the monopoly on force to enforce those rights against those with competing claims. In return, the business provides tax revenues and help keep the people content through employment. As a business grows larger, they accrue more leverage, and can extract subsidies and aid from the government, which will generally be all too happy to provide it to them. This mutualistic relationship is why corporations will, when forced to choose between potentially no government and an authoritarian government, will pick the latter. This was seen in the Spanish Civil War, when the landed and business owners rallied around the fascist Franco, who although extremely authoritarian preserved the corporatist relationship and private property.

Now, anti-corruption measures to take corporate money out of the political sphere can alleviate this issue to a great extent, so we can still keep both capitalism and government. But a 'true capitalist' system in which none have unfair advantages and in which corporatism is finally quashed isn't feasible.

Well there are several pretty fundamental differences between corporations and states, e.g. one has a monopoly of force and the other doesn't, and one has a broad set of responsibilities over its jurisdiction whereas the other just has a general idea to make its shareholders profit in specialized areas.

Originally posted by walshy
The GDP per capita of Sweden developed as well as that of the US since the 60s

http://i66.tinypic.com/2zi78di.png

Not sure if Sweden's GDP correlation with the U.S. really matters. Ever since the high taxes and the giant welfare state, Sweden stagnated juxtaposed to their previous growth.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-16jhl5Ke5ug/WmJstexSGXI/AAAAAAAAEZc/MHuSnboKfugY_m4sLmVBaGbLCl1otIYawCL0BGAYYCw/h290/2018-01-19.png

And according to the World Factbook, Sweden has a lower GDP per capita than the states. In addition, they used to have the seventh highest and now they have dropped in 26.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Well there are several pretty fundamental differences between corporations and states, e.g. one has a monopoly of force and the other doesn't, and one has a broad set of responsibilities over its jurisdiction whereas the other just has a general idea to make its shareholders profit in specialized areas.

Originally posted by lazybones
A pretty unavoidable truth, unfortunately. The corporatist relationship between business and state is ultimately symbiotic and sought by both parties. From a enterprise's very beginnings, the state guarantees the private property of the business, and has the monopoly on force to enforce those rights against those with competing claims. In return, the business provides tax revenues and help keep the people content through employment. As a business grows larger, they accrue more leverage, and can extract subsidies and aid from the government, which will generally be all too happy to provide it to them. This mutualistic relationship is why corporations will, when forced to choose between potentially no government and an authoritarian government, will pick the latter. This was seen in the Spanish Civil War, when the landed and business owners rallied around the fascist Franco, who although extremely authoritarian preserved the corporatist relationship and private property.

Now, anti-corruption measures to take corporate money out of the political sphere can alleviate this issue to a great extent, so we can still keep both capitalism and government. But a 'true capitalist' system in which none have unfair advantages and in which corporatism is finally quashed isn't feasible.

Great argument for anarcho capitalism, tbh.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Great argument for anarcho capitalism, tbh. How? If businesses are benefiting from corporatism, then they aren't going to support the dissolution of the entity which enables it. And it's going to be pretty hard to dissolve the state for anarcho-capitalism when not even the capitalists are on board.

It's more of an argument for accountable government by the way of public campaign financing and heavy restrictions on private donations to political campaigns. That's a far more achievable and preferable option to abolishing the state outright, which is a non-starter for some reasons that I've already mentioned.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Great argument for anarcho capitalism, tbh. The only difference between anarcho-capitalism and what we have now is that in an AC environment the monopoly of force is owned by corporations instead of the state. Essentially, in an anarcho-capitalist environment corporations ARE the state.

If you want to see what an ancap country would look like, check out Somalia and the parts of Mexico that are run by cartels.

Originally posted by lazybones
How? If businesses are benefiting from corporatism, then they aren't going to support the dissolution of the entity which enables it. And it's going to be pretty hard to dissolve the state for anarcho-capitalism when not even the capitalists are on board.

Well, of course, businesses do not want to lose their subsidies and state-provided monopolies. But as long as an institution exists which has a monopoly on force and has a nigh-infinite supply of money corporatism will live on. Making government accountable is merely a temporary solution, due to power hungry nature of corporations and the money-hungry nature of politicians.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
The only difference between anarcho-capitalism and what we have now is that in an AC environment the monopoly of force is owned by corporations instead of the state. Essentially, in an anarcho-capitalist environment corporations ARE the state.

If you want to see what an ancap country would look like, check out Somalia and the parts of Mexico that are run by cartels.

Please research before you start making authoritative statements like that, tbh. Corporations would not "own everything," due to competition. Also, corporations are far more tied to their consumers than government because their actions have a direct effect on their profit-loss margins. Competition and profitability work in tandem to keep corporations in check. Government lacks both of those regulations. Now, let's take a deeper look at Somalia. The best way to analyze the state is to look at its success before and after the state was abolished. This graph shows some successes:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1-lB5petNoI/WmKB3fYxC4I/AAAAAAAAEZw/UobJMnmwWNoHF6oDYKhip0rQ2IPU3uhUgCL0BGAYYCw/h227/2018-01-19.png

Ben Powell has a study where he analyzes Somalia with meticulous detail:http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Please research before you start making authoritative statements like that, tbh. Corporations would not "own everything," due to competition. Also, corporations are far more tied to their consumers than government because their actions have a direct effect on their profit-loss margins. Competition and profitability work in tandem to keep corporations in check. Government lacks both of those regulations.

That may be true until a hypothetical ancap Big Software Company comes out with killer robots to subjugate humanity by force, NAP be damned.

Sounds specious but I think it's actually a non-trivial argument to refute (competition doesn't serve as a blanket counter because some fields naturally converge to monopolies anyway, e.g. search engines). You could easily see a single corporation owning, say, a fifth of total GDP through natural market competition and then turning into an irl Trade Federation. There's no fundamental reason why competitive forces would always keep things just in enough equilibrium so that a sufficiently motivated and powerful private entity couldn't break it.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
That may be true until a hypothetical ancap Big Software Company comes out with killer robots to subjugate humanity by force, NAP be damned.

Sounds specious but I think it's actually a non-trivial argument to refute (competition doesn't serve as a blanket counter because some fields naturally converge to monopolies anyway, e.g. search engines). You could easily see a single corporation owning, say, a fifth of total GDP through natural market competition and then turning into an irl Trade Federation. There's no fundamental reason why competitive forces would always keep things just in enough equilibrium so that a sufficiently motivated and powerful private entity couldn't break it.

Not sure about that one for a few reasons.

1. I think it is extraordinarily difficult to garner that much of the market without government intervention and with free trade.
2.In your example, competition would handle the problem pretty easily. If we imagine that Google starts forcing all of their customers to use their service, competitors such as yahoo, bing, ecosia, Baidu, Sogou, QiHoo 360, Chinaso. Not to mention, Google absolutely cares about their reputation and shareholders would not be pleased with such aggressive action.
3. I mean the reason to believe that equilibrium would be kept intact is that companies are beholden to their consumers and shareholders.

capitalism is evil. socialism is not

not the same at all

Originally posted by Beniboybling
capitalism is evil. socialism is not

not the same at all

Name one example where socialism has been successful.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
1. I think it is extraordinarily difficult to garner that much of the market without government intervention and with free trade.

Ehhh. Monopoly is not a concept that purely exists in the world of government regulation. Competition on paper keeps anyone from gaining control of everything but there are plenty of irl examples of certain competitors getting an overwhelming amount of control:

- RL empires/nations (monopoly of force isn't the point because the *competition* has that too)

- Lots of tech companies (in that industry in particular) with almost complete market share of certain industries without significant gov't regulation in their favor

- Sports dynasties

- Darth Sidious



You're thinking too small. I'm not worried about Bernard Madoff, I'm worried about Emperor Palpatine. Shareholders don't matter that much to a hypothetical company who has essentially self-awarded a monopoly of force.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Ehhh. Monopoly is not a concept that purely exists in the world of government regulation. Competition on paper keeps anyone from gaining control of everything but there are plenty of irl examples of certain competitors getting an overwhelming amount of control:

- RL empires/nations (monopoly of force isn't the point because the *competition* has that too)

- Lots of tech companies (in that industry in particular) with almost complete market share of certain industries without significant gov't regulation in their favor

- Sports dynasties

- Darth Sidious


No, there is no monopoly which has been cultivated under a free trade/free market society other than the Debris Diamond Company and the 1913 NYSE.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
No, there is no monopoly which has been cultivated under a free trade/free market society other than the Debris Diamond Company and the 1913 NYSE.

Well the rhetorical trick is that you can just say that anything that ever happens in recent history doesn't happen in a free market and thus doesn't count as evidence regardless of whether there's evidence that the non-free market actually contributed to the monopoly.



I brought up analogies to other competitive fields where monopolies can surface just to illustrate the point that competition isn't magic and isn't impossible to create majority power-holds over. A "Mongol Empire" or "modern US navy" of corporations with respect to monopolizing power over competitors isn't on paper impossible or even especially implausible.

See: Google. Not really a bad monopoly but nonetheless monopolized search simply because they had the best product + the nature of the industry favored monopolies.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Name one example where socialism has been successful. when jeremy corbyn enters into power, he'll show u

DarthSkywalker0, I'm typing a little sporadically right now so I suppose my rhetoric isn't operating at peak capacity: what I'm trying to say is that you can observe in lots of competitive networks and systems across a wide domain of fields one group getting enough power to either dominate everyone else put together or dominate them given imperfect coordination. E.g. sports, militaries, Star Wars debating, etc. The problem here is that I honestly don't know if there's any safety net in your ancap land for the case when that does happen, whereas say with governments there are active collective efforts to balance power against hegemons, etc.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
DarthSkywalker0, I'm typing a little sporadically right now so I suppose my rhetoric isn't operating at peak capacity: what I'm trying to say is that you can observe in lots of competitive networks and systems across a wide domain of fields one group getting enough power to either dominate everyone else put together or dominate them given imperfect coordination. E.g. sports, militaries, Star Wars debating, etc. The problem here is that I honestly don't know if there's any safety net in your ancap land for the case when that does happen, whereas say with governments there are active collective efforts to balance power against hegemons, etc.

Please provide an example of this happening. Cause I do not see any.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Well, of course, businesses do not want to lose their subsidies and state-provided monopolies. But as long as an institution exists which has a monopoly on force and has a nigh-infinite supply of money corporatism will live on. Making government accountable is merely a temporary solution, due to power hungry nature of corporations and the money-hungry nature of politicians. If businesses won't support anarcho-capitalism then it's dead on arrival. Just as socialism would be dead on arrival without the support of workers, or syndicalism without the support of trade unions.

In regards to your other concerns, you are right that corporatism will likely persist on some low frequency even with clean elections and reform. However, that is simply a reality that we must come to terms with. After all, capitalism could not even function if it were not for the state's guarantee of property rights and its crucial role in settling disputes. So the state must exist, and no state can be fully pure. It's just a matter of structuring the state in a way that makes it least prone to corruption.

Originally posted by lazybones
If businesses won't support anarcho-capitalism then it's dead on arrival. Just as socialism would be dead on arrival without the support of workers, or syndicalism without the support of trade unions.

In regards to your other concerns, you are right that corporatism will likely persist on some low frequency even with clean elections and reform. However, that is simply a reality that we must come to terms with. After all, capitalism could not even function if it were not for the state's guarantee of property rights and its crucial role in settling disputes. So the state must exist, and no state can be fully pure. It's just a matter of structuring the state in a way that makes it least prone to corruption.

I disagree. But, I do not want to turn this into a massive debate. Suffice it to say, that I do not buy the notion the state is the guaranteer of property rights. They exist in stateless societies such as Northern Ireland and private organizations have a monetary incentive to protect yours.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
when jeremy corbyn enters into power, he'll show u

Well, personally I am not inclined to support a system that has no theoretical nor empirical backing.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
stateless societies such as Northern Ireland what

Originally posted by Beniboybling
what

Northern Ireland was stateless for a thousand years, before intervention from external forces.

https://i.imgur.com/h4mr6u5.png

Originally posted by Beniboybling
https://i.imgur.com/h4mr6u5.png



I worry about your health, tbh. The country itself did not exist, but people still existed there. Here is Pete Earle talking to Tom Woods about Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZqKvLE1ZZE

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I worry about your health, tbh. The country itself did not exist, but people still existed there. Here is Pete Earle talking to Tom Woods about Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZqKvLE1ZZE

Lol I noticed that, I was wondering what this person thought the word "stateless" even means.

facepalm

I think you are confusing Ireland (the landmass) with Northern Ireland (the country).

and who the f*ck is tom woods lol.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I think you are confusing Ireland (the landmass) with Northern Ireland (the country).

and who the f*ck is tom woods lol.

They congregated in Northern Ireland, I was not referencing the country. Tom Woods is an accomplished historian.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
They congregated in Northern Ireland, I was not referencing the country. I don't think they did but OK.
Right, and his argument seems to be that Ireland in the middle ages was some kind of libertarian example? Despite being arranged into petty kingdoms with serfs and shit? Lol. He needs a new job.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Please provide an example of this happening. Cause I do not see any.

So the reason why I argued from analogy is that practically every economy has some sort of state regulation so you can just say "regulation caused the monopoly!" I provided examples of competitive systems in which a single player gains more power than the rest put together. I see no reason why the free market is so confidently immune to that possibility.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I don't think they did but OK.
Right, and his argument seems to be that Ireland in the middle ages was some kind of libertarian example? Despite being arranged into petty kingdoms with serfs and shit? Lol. He needs a new job.

Ireland had a complex society and competing courts without the state. Iceland was quite similar as well.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
So the reason why I argued from analogy is that practically every economy has some sort of state regulation so you can just say "regulation caused the monopoly!" I provided examples of competitive systems in which a single player gains more power than the rest put together. I see no reason why the free market is so confidently immune to that possibility.

There are no monopolies. Like there has not ever been a true monopoly in a free market society. Unless the government disallows competition or gives tax breaks, they do not happen.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Ireland had a complex society and competing courts without the state. Iceland was quite similar as well. mmm get me some of that ancap serfdom, so what was the currency? bitcoin or cattle?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
mmm get me some of that ancap serfdom, so what was the currency? bitcoin or cattle?

Have you heard of the gold standard?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Have you heard of the gold standard?

Isn't that what the Left thinks the Double Standard is as well>