The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

[Weezy]

That's when people riot and VBH's head finds a proper stick, right?

[n_huffhines]

I've been talking about this for a few years. Technology ensures limited regulation, and oppression. Living in the Age of Information is so awesome.

How Tech Can Render Regulations Uber Obsolete | Cato @ Liberty

[n_huffhines]

Originally Posted by volinbham

Monopolies are almost always geographic. Land right of ways, natural resources, local expertise can all serve to create monopolies in specific geographic areas.

In a fully libertarian world I could see bridges, ferries, tunnels, roads, etc. being monopolies with staying power considerably longer than a month.

How would you keep other roads, ferries, and bridges from competing with your roads, ferries, and bridges?

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by n_huffhines

How would you keep other roads, ferries, and bridges from competing with your roads, ferries, and bridges?

Depends on my land ownership situation. I'm not saying I could prevent competition but if I own the right access points, competing solutions would be considerably less convenient/feasible.

Take an extreme example. If I owned the land on either side of the Panama canal I would certainly have monopoly unless someone decided to build a competing canal. Sure someone could build one but if their land wasn't as well suited then it would be prohibitively costly.

I don't need the government to create my monopoly. One exists so long as competition cannot or will not provide a substitute.

[PKT_VOL]

Originally Posted by therealUT

Are you asserting that there are no 'natural slaves'?

By your definition of "natural slave"? No doubt there are.

Originally Posted by therealUT

Or, are you simply asserting that Aristotle's criteria for deciding the question of who are these slaves are faulty?

I was implying that his definition was faulty for a "physical" slave while intriguing (and agreed) for "political" slaves.

Originally Posted by therealUT

I think there are probably individuals who are born as natural slaves; I just think we do not have the resources to know, without a doubt, who they are. There are certainly individuals who would much rather be told exactly what to do throughout their entire lives than have to deal with making any critical decisions. I would say that these individuals are natural slaves.

Your definition of "natural" slave would be just one segment of my overarching definition of a "political" slave. I think intelligence plays a big role as well.

[BartW]

Gary Johnson 2012!

[possumslayer]

The libertarian test,Google it
Posted via VolNation Mobile

[n_huffhines]

Originally Posted by volinbham

Depends on my land ownership situation. I'm not saying I could prevent competition but if I own the right access points, competing solutions would be considerably less convenient/feasible.

Take an extreme example. If I owned the land on either side of the Panama canal I would certainly have monopoly unless someone decided to build a competing canal. Sure someone could build one but if their land wasn't as well suited then it would be prohibitively costly.

I don't need the government to create my monopoly. One exists so long as competition cannot or will not provide a substitute.

OK. I'm not sure really what the point is. I never really thought that it was practical to consider private property as a monopoly problem. You put a pool in your yard that nobody can use...you have a monopoly. You put a Panama Canal in your yard...you have a monopoly. Sure.

I was talking more about manufacturing, services, software, etc.

If somebody buys up the area of the Panama Canal, and builds the Panama Canal, then of course they have a monopoly. But we are better off for it. We have an option that didn't exist before. We can do whatever we did before the canal, or we can pay to borrow their property for a bit. I don't see this as relevant, because it's not a monopoly "problem".

[GreveHaller]

Originally Posted by n_huffhines

OK. I'm not sure really what the point is. I never really thought that it was practical to consider private property as a monopoly problem. You put a pool in your yard that nobody can use...you have a monopoly. You put a Panama Canal in your yard...you have a monopoly. Sure.

I was talking more about manufacturing, services, software, etc.

If somebody buys up the area of the Panama Canal, and builds the Panama Canal, then of course they have a monopoly. But we are better off for it. We have an option that didn't exist before. We can do whatever we did before the canal, or we can pay to borrow their property for a bit. I don't see this as relevant, because it's not a monopoly "problem".

its only a monopoly because no one else has done it yet. If others buy property property around and build their own canal, then the monolopy is gone. There could be an ogilopoly opprotunity there unless someone develops an alternative to the canal and at that point it is pure supply and demand

[RespectTradition]

Originally Posted by volinbham

You sure about that? Let's say I own the only navigable shoreline on an island. If I build a port and any one that wants to use the port must go through mine given the geographic constraints don't I have a monopoly on this particular trade?

Poor phrasing on my part.

Better:

A monopoly can only continue to exist when there are people who want to change that state if the government is involved.

A person could do massive engineering and build a harbor on the other side of the island where it is not a natural fit, for example. That may be prohibitively expensive and no one may choose to do so, but it is possible. If people truly are dedicated to making it a two port island, they could. The only way that the single port can remain a monopoly in the face of opposition is if the govt makes it illegal or impossible for someone else to redo another part of the coast.

The first person to enter any field has a 'monopoly' from a certain point of view. That is not what is meant when 'monopoly' is used in a pejorative manner.

[volinbham]

For both RT and Huff - what is the monopoly that government is creating that is different from a natural monopoly? I fail to see the "monopoly problem" when it comes to government. Even in areas like utilities and communications we have options. I can go off the grid if I want.

[n_huffhines]

Originally Posted by volinbham

For both RT and Huff - what is the monopoly that government is creating that is different from a natural monopoly? I fail to see the "monopoly problem" when it comes to government. Even in areas like utilities and communications we have options. I can go off the grid if I want.

The USPS is a great example of government monopoly, and why it's much different from natural monopolies. They forbid any competitor from competing in courier mail service.

Public schools....you don't have to send your kids there, but you do have to send your money.

Government road/highways systems ensure limited/non-existent private road systems.

Etc.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by n_huffhines

The USPS is a great example of government monopoly, and why it's much different from natural monopolies. They forbid any competitor from competing in courier mail service.

Public schools....you don't have to send your kids there, but you do have to send your money.

Government road/highways systems ensure limited private road systems.

Etc.

But there are plenty of substitutes for USPS. So many in fact that USPS has been in a steady decline. I can send letters, packages, etc. through other means than the USPS.

Public schools do not require you send money. They are considered a public good so everyone in the community supports them whether or not they use them. That is not a monopoly since I am not buying something - it is a tax like other taxes that support public goods.

I guess roads are inevitable when you are spanning multiple pieces of private property. Within a development though you may be able to build your own road system.

[n_huffhines]

Originally Posted by volinbham

(1) But there are plenty of substitutes for USPS. So many in fact that USPS has been in a steady decline. I can send letters, packages, etc. through other means than the USPS.

(2) Public schools do not require you send money. They are considered a public good so everyone in the community supports them whether or not they use them. That is not a monopoly since I am not buying something - (3) it is a tax like other taxes that support public goods.

I guess roads are inevitable when you are spanning multiple pieces of private property. Within a development though you may be able to build your own road system.

1) You can send courier mail through FedEx? Technically you can, but nobody does it (unless it's over night) because the law forbids FedEx from charging less than $1.50 (or so) for delivery, in order to eliminate competition.

2) Those two sentences are mutually exclusive, IMO.

3) You think a provider of public goods cannot be monopolistic? Why?

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by n_huffhines

1) You can send courier mail through FedEx? Technically you can, but nobody does it (unless it's over night) because the law forbids FedEx from charging less than $1.50 (or so) for delivery, in order to eliminate competition.

Nothing says two providers must charge the same price. The point is that I have several options for sending physical items not to mention many electronic substitutes.

2) Those two sentences are mutually exclusive, IMO.

Not really. A monopoly implies if I want a particular product or service I am limited to one supplier. Taxes are not the same as purchasing an item. So even if I have no children, I pay taxes in a community as a condition of living there. Part of those taxes go to providing a school system of which I can use or not use. The HC mandate is a good example of the distinction. If the law was written as a tax for which service was provided then the Constitutionality would not be challenged. As it stands, it requires the specific purchase of a product and that makes it distinct from a tax for a service.

3) You think a provider of public goods cannot be monopolistic? Why?

I never said that. National Healthcare would be monopolistic - assuming my only source of HC would be a government run system (HC employees; not just single payer insurance). If the only options for school were public school (mandated attendance) then it would be monopolistic. (2 examples)