I can parse that sentence but it doesn’t make much sense…
I’m afraid I still don’t get it. Are you saying companies don’t strive to lower prices in order to attract new customers ?
Let’s say supplier 1 is more efficient than supplier 2, so supplier 1 can sell at a lower price, which benefits consumers and at the same time forces supplier 2 out of business…I thought that’s what competition was all about, no ?
A company cannot set prices lower than it has supply to meet demand. It cannot set prices higher than it wants to keep supply in reserve. Ultimately it is the demanders that choose prices as much as the company.
If supplier 1 is more efficient than supplier 2, then it will make more profit from selling its supply, but it won’t be able to sell at a lower price unless it has produced enough supply to meet all the demand for the good. If it has not then there will be a shortage from supplier 1 and supplier 2 will be able to sell the same good at higher prices.
Obviously. Prices are mutually agreed upon. No news there…
Yes, and that is exactly what it will do - it will produce more and sell the good cheaper. Again, it’s called competition.
Maybe you’re trying(and failing) to prove that competition in a free society doesn’t really matter because your idea of a free society is actually some sort of monarchy where people live as tenants in land ‘privately’ owned…?
I don’t see how that follows. People who rent because they don’t want the hassle of being landowners will benefit from competition between all the landowners.
Never mind my comment about your motives. The point is, this assertion of yours
is false.
With respect to
that’s true, but not related to the subjects being discussed. Oh, wait. You were arguing that competition doesn’t really matter - but now it does ?
Okay, I am still confused about some aspects of this.. I know this question is kind of random and not directly related to the thread, but its not worth starting a new one for. Does anyone know of any specific pieces (either essays, books, papers, mises.org audio etc.) that go into detail about how a private road system would work. I know someone mentioned Walter Block, but I was hoping somebody might know of a specific piece by Block, or any one else for that matter…
Thanks
Competition does not matter in how prices are set, because prices are always set by the equilibrium in supply and demand. Whether there is one or many supplier makes no difference to that. If I am the only supplier and I supply more, I will earn a lower price.
If I am the only landowner and I make more land available to rent, I will earn a lower price. The amount I rent out will depend on the marginal cost of producing land to rent. The optimal amount of land that I will rent is set by the market, not me.
This is a good index: http://marketurbanism.com/academic-links/
Nonsense.
There’s no equilibrium in a free market – that’s a bogus neoclassical concept.
More nonsense.
Nobody produces land.
False. A landowner can rent all his land or none of it if he so wishes. The amount is decided both by him and the would-be tenants. And whether there’s only one producer of a good, or many, does make a difference both in pricing and quality.
Great Information. Thank you!
Would this mean that all roads become toll roads?
Not necessarily. Back when Brooklyn developed, private developers built roads and provided trolleys as an incentive for people to move out there. Many homes have driveways, which could be considered private roads.
Only one highway exists between my town and my nearest city. Won’t the owner of this highway then have a virtual monopoly and be able to charge as much as he likes?
But hey, why did you move there in the first place? Either there was not a road to your town until this guy came around, or he had bought up all the existing roads. If there was no road to begin with, you wouldn’t have moved there. And if for some reason you had already lived there, the new road, however expensive, is better than no road.
What about if someone bought the only existing road and wanted to screw you? There’s a few ways this could go , but abuse of the monopoly will only hurt the operator. First, people in your town would use the road less often, leading to lower revenues. Second, people may just leave your town, leaving the road operator with a worthless road. Third, someone else would acquire land to build a competing road, thus ending the monopoly.
There would only be a few rational reasons for the road owner to not want as much traffic as possible. One reason for it is that the road owner sees a more optimal use for the land the road sits on. If so, he could destroy the road and use the land more optimally. Sorry… Nonetheless, it is unlikely for the owner of a huge piece of land not to provide at least the bare minimum of a roadway, especially if your town is sizable and would provide a decent revenue.
What if the owner of a major highway wanted to prevent some arbitrary group, say, Norwegians, from using the highway, and felt so strongly that he went to great lengths to make sure no Norwegians drove on his road?
This would be a very expensive way to stick it to the Norwegians. I don’t think the investors would be too happy to forgo the income from the potential Norwegian costumers. Most likely, the situation would be similar to the town situation. People would move away, and competition that allows Norwegians succeed. The first example that comes to mind are the law schools that grew rapidly as a result of major law schools not allowing Jews…
What is to stop someone buying up the roads that surround my house and decides that I cannot go on it? Am I a prisoner in my own home?
It becomes an issue if you can no longer use your property because someone bought all the property that surrounds your home, you cannot come or go. Walter Block calls this forestalling. It is a violation of property rights, and would not be permissible in a libertarian society.
Block does however believe that property rights do not extend infinitely up and down over the footprint. He argues that you would have the right to tunnel under or bridge over the property. I am not convinced by this, because I should be able to own the space above and below my property, even if I am not using it productively.
I don’t know exactly the best way to confront forestalling. A state could prohibit it, but without a state I’m not sure. I would imagine the land owner would have to provide an easement (as someone mentioned).
I hope this helps.
Adam
You could argue that you are accustomed to using the space above your home to enjoy the view of nature. You should have a larger claim to it than someone who wanted to make normal society a basement. As far as forestalling, it seems that a forestaller could not make such a convincing argument if someone attempted to bridge over his property.
There is a slippery slope, however. Can I simply declare any wild land I stumble upon my own nature preserve?
What is UNREAL about the example is that it presupposes that you NEVER had access rights of any kind.
If someone buys up all the land (or roads) surrounding your property, you STILL have whatever access rights you had prior to that action. No one could sell your access rights but you.
This applies whether State exists or not. As long as there are recognized rights to “buy” and own land (yours and the one who buys all around you), the same applies to your rights of access.
Very insightful. Where do we draw the line of what is property and what isn’t? “Access” as a property right seems good from a utilitarian perspective, but what about say, views? Does someone have the right to protect his scenic views of the sea?
Ads. Billboards. What does Google charge people?
Google doesn’t pay bandwidth and connection for every user.
An argument of property should be an argument of scarcity. If someone else’s actions have not shown evidence of sufficiently depriving someone else of something they could properly said to have homesteaded or acquired via a proper contract, they should not be guilty of theft.
Also, remember homesteading is mixing labor with nature. If there is no evidence of labor to have put a scarce element of nature to identifiable use, it should not be considered homesteaded. Consider a farmer and a skyscraper construction, as neighbors. Who is entitled to the sunlight the building will obstruct? He who first mixed his labor with nature to put that pattern of sunlight to identifiable use.
Is mixing of labor with nature the only justification? What about pleasure? Is enjoyment of nature similar to mixing labor? I mean if someone moved to a location because of a beautiful natural scene (which is scarce), should they have similar property rights as someone who mixes labor more clearly "identifiable use, such as a farmer?
I’d like to add that untolled private roads are currently abundant in the form of private driveways. The concept could be expanded to a private community.
Wouldn’t that nearly be the equivalent of a driver paying for his car and gas? Do you not think advertising could finance a road?