What is Anarchy?

[loseyourname]

By the way - you already posted that.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Not to mention the fact that they had no choice but to cooperate or die out on the frontier. Besides, not all people share their values and sense of moral obligation. Shahumyan, for instance, would be out beating the xxxx out of half the people he encountered if there were no laws or law-enforcement personnel in place to dissuade him.

And that is precisely it, they had to cooperate, the same as on the market. Shahumyan is a Marxist, what does that tell you about Statist ideologies? They rely on beating to exist.

[loseyourname]

Do you really think Sam Walton and Bill Gates would cooperate with anyone they weren't forced to by legislation? Don't get the impression that I support all the market regulation taking place, but let's get real here. Ideals work perfectly fine in small groups. You take a world of 6 billion people that largely hate each other, and things get a little more complicated. Oftentimes, a beating here can avert a much larger beating elsewhere.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Do you really think Sam Walton and Bill Gates would cooperate with anyone they weren't forced to by legislation? Don't get the impression that I support all the market regulation taking place, but let's get real here. Ideals work perfectly fine in small groups. You take a world of 6 billion people that largely hate each other, and things get a little more complicated. Oftentimes, a beating here can avert a much larger beating elsewhere.

Why do they buy legislation? Because Government exists. Big Businesses sees government as a means to an end. Of course, Microsoft is just another Government created monopoly. Where it serves its purpose they are allowed to get big, where it doesn't they are crushed, all thanks to the dubious Sherman Anti Trust Act, which gives government the power to do all this.

[loseyourname]

The only way Microsoft would not have attained a monopoly is either if no action was taken to break up their attempts or if patent laws had never existed in the first place. Refer back to Standard Oil, when nobody gave a xxxx about regulating or legislating any market forces. If you think that's better, something's a little off.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname The only way Microsoft would not have attained a monopoly is either if no action was taken to break up their attempts or if patent laws had never existed in the first place. Refer back to Standard Oil, when nobody gave a xxxx about regulating or legislating any market forces. If you think that's better, something's a little off.

It's believed by many today that Standard Oil was a stronger monopoly than Microsoft. Standard Oil became a near monopoly by bringing down the price from 58 cents to 8 cents per gallon at which it could sell kerosene to the consumer. Soon enough oil companies around the world matched Standard’s efficiency. Rockefeller then resorted to underhanded tactics to sustain monopoly power in the US which he never had (since government legislation exists why not use it right?) Even at its peak, Standard had competitors who were constantly reducing their own costs and prices, though they were usually a step behind. The only efforts that had any effect were his activism in getting enacted laws that would hamstring the competition. By the way, Microsoft’s share of the operating system market has been decreasing steadily to Apple, Linux, and others, and was decreasing even before the big government antitrust attack.

[loseyourname]

I never said Standard Oil was stronger. What difference does it make what "many people" believe? My only point is that the competition certainly wasn't fair, and if competition was fair for Microsoft, they would have at least temporarily gained a near complete monopoly. Whether or not it would have lasted isn't the point. The point is that competition is being stifled, and the market ceases to operate the way it is intended to.

I will admit that regulation can be even worse. Good examples are rent caps and cigarette taxes.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I never said Standard Oil was stronger. What difference does it make what "many people" believe? My only point is that the competition certainly wasn't fair, and if competition was fair for Microsoft, they would have at least temporarily gained a near complete monopoly. Whether or not it would have lasted isn't the point. The point is that competition is being stifled, and the market ceases to operate the way it is intended to.

I will admit that regulation can be even worse. Good examples are rent caps and cigarette taxes.

The free market isn't fair, that is what you cannot understand, for you have a socialistic, egalitarian statist bias. I just explained how Standard Oil fostered more competition. Without government licensing, trade restrictions, centrally imposed regulations, and other barriers to entrepreneurs, there would be more companies able to offer services, not fewer. Any innovator who approached monopoly power would enjoy profits that attract intense competition. Thus, any firm that approaches monopoly power and profits in a free market produces the seeds of its own destruction. No business can approach monopolyunless everybody wants that firm’s product at the price the firm offers. And no powerful corporation will ever be free from the continuous, nagging oversight of customers and consumer interest agencies.

[loseyourname]

You're being a little simplistic, don't you think? We're living on the planet earth, not in an Econ 101 textbook.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname You're being a little simplistic, don't you think? We're living on the planet earth, not in an Econ 101 textbook.

You don't understand economics apparently I am forced to explain the basics to you.