Um, no. Read the article to get what I am alluding to. How you actually arrive at “market share” figures plays a role in what result you’ll get. You don’t even have to lie.
-Jon
But who determines the “necessity” of the law or the judgement? Another imperfect human. My problem with government is the leverage…
If you have two people, and one decides to better his own situation at the expense of the other… that is an isolated, albeit immoral incident. One person commiting immoral acts can only do so much damage for so long when acting alone.
However, with a government that same immoral person now has the power and resources of a nation behind him. The magnitude of damage he can do is increased and the duration of the damage is increased.
One could make the argument that that same governmental leverage could be used to do good… but we’ve already established that humans tend towards the selfish, so that seems unlikely at best.
it’s either anarchy, which is like tanning in the sun, or you have government, which is sitting at the focal point of a fresnel lens.
WTF does your pretty charts and appeal to authority fallacies have to do with the issue at hand?
You haven’t shown that MS doesn’t use government protection to prop up their monopoly.
You haven’t shown how using government force to take down monopolies of their own creation (AT&T) is a better system.
All you are really doing is demonstrating the logic behind the theory that government regulation leads to more government regulation to fix the unintended consequences of the previous regulations.
So, theoretically speaking, the government creates the conditions ripe for a company to seize a 90% market share and you’re saying that we should also look to the exact same people who created the problem for the solution in order to improve market competition? And this is a good thing?
Ok, so how are Net Applications’ statistical methods lacking?
Read the thread. It was in reply to a statistical claim with no data cited. If you’re calling for no appeals to authority, then I guess we’ll have to disregard all those links posted to columns on this site too.
I’m saying the creation of monopolies is an unavoidable system and, as a result, we need to have avenues to tear them down.
Close. What I’m saying is that our innate desire for power results in the inevitable seizing and consolidation of power. Our system needs methods to trip that inevitability up. Sad but true.
Close again. Not government, per say, but people (in government and private sectors) create these conditions. We’re predisposed to doing it.
Who would build the roads? The horror!
You really don’t know where you are, do you?
Yep, that would be competition on a level playing field as has been previously pointed out.
How could they consolidate their power base if any old Joe could compete against them and they didn’t have legalized State aggression to prop up their monopoly?
Your system relies on the hope that in their consolidation of power they could somehow manage to not seize the apparatus that is supposed to protect against them and use it against their competitors.
Haven’t heard a peep out of the DOJ since Bill Gates & Co. decided to break their tradition of staying out of politics, have you? You have heard about MS’s sockpuppet SCO during that same time period I would imagine…
Getting rid of the state does not get rid of coercive power at the barrel of a gun. I’d be less worried about roads and more so about who the next warlord would be that decides to make the rules for us. I suggest studying up a little on anthropology.
Since a state is necessary to enforce our property rights, etc, we’ll always have legalized state aggression in some form or another. Whether their collusion starts out legal or not doesn’t matter. The laws will eventually erode and be changed in their favor. We see things like this happen before our very eyes all the time.
Like I said, anti-trust is far from perfect but, because monopolies are inevitable, we need to have something in place to reign them in.
Again, I’d like you to show how that result was achieved. What relevant metrics were taken into consideration? Simply posting numbers means nothing. Even if it is correct it means little to nothing. But I’d like to know how they came by that result.
-Jon
What an arrogant little snot you are. You make purely speculative, metaphysical assumptions you expect us to take on faith, and then retort “read up some anthropology dude!!!” as if that counters the argument presented. If anything, it is you who should read up on anthropology. And maybe economics and political theory too.
-Jon
Whoah… now obviously i’m new here so ignore my opinion if you will, but the way this discussion has degenerated, it’s a wonder that this forum is as active as it is. I’ve only been on this site for a short while but the climate appears to be this…
There are a lot of people on these forums who staunchly believe in the Austrian free market theory and they defend their positions agressively. There are also a lot of people who are coming to realize that the current system is not working and are seeking alternatives. These people are not accustomed to praxeological deductions, and a priori, or even basic economic or philosophic theory. They ask questions that may seem trivial and when given the maybe true, definitely complex answers, they get confused and ask again… or they understand and disagree… or any shade in between. If a person doesnt understand point them in the right direction respectfully. The point is, Austrian economics NEEDS supporters and i do believe one of the best ways to convert people to your position is not to stoop to arrogant, unhelpful answers, name calling and insults… that goes for both sides in this argument, but the message is also for (my perceived) general sense of elitism that seems to be running through this discussion board.
Getting frustrated?
What assumptions? I’m well-read on anthropology, thank you, and, if you differ with any of the conclusions I’ve gleaned from this science, please specifically point them out and refute them.
It’s a natural response when a new person comes along and challenges someone’s established beliefs. Actually, I think Jon and I differ in only nuanced ways but they’ve been amplified in this thread.
I hope we can delve further into the anthropological aspect of this, however, because it really is so intertwined with economic theory. Economics is about people and how they interact so, in order to design a proper system, the more one knows about what motivates human beings the better. For example, through the 20th century many prominent socialists believed in the “blank slate” theory and that, so long as you properly “programmed” them from birth, people could be conditioned to thrive in their utopian system. Of course, that theory has since been debunked (although some people still hang on to it). The more we learn about ourselves the better we can adapt to an economic system.
Frustrated? No. Bored. You’ve presented little argument so far for me to get frustrated over. Just platitudes.
Why? I certainly have no obligation to refute your positive assertions when you’ve offered little to defend them other than “go read anthropology dude!!!” and platitudes like “humans are corrupt” or stuff like that.
Nah. It’s this “go study a little anthropology” attitude I find objectionable, as if everyone here but you is ignorant of it. Newsflash: we’re not.
-Jon
Actually, no.
You’re at a disadvantage, we’ve all heard your arguments before. They might as well be out of a high school civics book, or Time Magazine. The only (somewhat) interesting part is seeing how you react to being exposed to new concepts.
Too bad. I was hoping we’d get somewhere good with this.
Anyone else who wants to discuss anthropology with me please do so. It really is the foundation of all economics and, if I come out learning more, then this was a very worthy thread for me.
Again, too bad. :-/
Why would the State be necessary to enforce our property rights?
Am I correct in assuming that you believe that property rights dervive from the State and are granted by ‘them’ to us mere peons since they have a legal monopoly on the landmass that composes the state?
You keep saying that but haven’t shown anything that shows this inevitability outside of the mechanisms that they use to distort the market to squeeze out competition.
Maybe you could show how anti-trust has been used in the past to break up a monopoly that wasn’t explicitly constructed by the State like AT&T. Or perhaps show one true monopoly that developed ‘naturally’ without help from the State.
Shouldn’t be too hard since they are inevitable and all that…
Oh, and if monopolies are inevitable why don’t we see more international monopolies? Or local monopolies outside of government granted ones like utility providers?
I can give a bunch of examples where monopolies form out of government regulations but can’t think of a single one where they were the inevitable result of market competition.
Even the longest running international cartel, De Beers, uses government licensing requirements to force any new diamond finds into the cartel…and spread a whole lot of money around to politicians to ensure this happens.
Let’s get to the point. Do you believe anarchy is the preferrable choice? History is on the side of a state providing better stability and economic growth for large groups of people. Look at post-Soviet Afghanistan or post-Saddam Iraq for examples of just how brutal the modern human still is. If a state doesn’t exist, one will form all by itself, most certainly with absolute tyranny, and conquer the weak. Hell, just take a walk through Compton at night to get the idea. I was caught smack-dab in the middle of the L.A. riots and got a good look at how “civilized” we really are. Anarchy only works if it’s similar to how we spent the last many millenia evolving: small clans with abundant land and resources. Our most recent example of this equilibrium would have been the Native Americans before Whitey came along and screwed it all up. [;)]
Since a state will exist (you can call it government, clan, gang, Taliban, Genghis Khan, whatever) no matter what, alliances between the political class and business class are bound to happen. The question to ask is what to do with monopolies when they come up? You’re calling a monopoly being formed by help from the state as unnatural when I’m telling you it’s all too natural.
Also, you ask for proof and I’m saying that every society you examine, with the possible exception of small clans that have abundant land and resources, is proof. Show me any that didn’t start or end up with a collusion of political and monetary power. Even in a perfect, “stateless” anarchy, if a wealthy entrepreneur decides to build his own private army, he now has political and monetary power – a collusion once again. He can start ruling by force over others weaker than him if he chooses.