Rockefeller had a monopoly how? Do you have a link to point out this history?
The only way a company would have a monopoly in a free market would be that company is violating liberty, but I would still like to see a link to further delve into this assertion of yours.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, that’s just too hilarious. I love your econ stand-up routine. Please, tell some more jokes.
My point is: natural societies have no property. And the most natural ones, the most primitive ones (such as South america indians) had no property.
Yet it doesn’t assures neither ideological liberty, economical liberty, political liberty, etc. If one has monopoly over the means of the communication, he stablishes a dictatorship of an ideology, without needing physical coercion.
For sure, but that doesn’t create the right of property, this right comes from a social agreement. It is not natural.
He was the USA king of oil, during the crisis of 1929 he was richer than the USA government. If he didn’t have a monopoly he was but a few steps from it. That is why his company was divided into pieces. Note: Exxon was but a piece of rockeffeler’s co.
Perhaps, but he was quitte close from a monopoly either way, there was also a “king of the railroads” in the USA. the most free a market is, the largest shall be the tendency towards monopoly. This is why there are laws (against free-market) forbiding monopoly.
yes and this isn’t a South American indian culture - it isn’t primitive. I can make distinctions between cultures. Are you trying to state something else?
How does this “one” sustain a monopoly without physical coercion?
Obviously this aspect of the discussion has come back to square one. Maybe we can come back to this after the other points have been deliberated upon, if that’s ok with you, unless you would like to bring something else up pertaining to this feel free. I’ll try to avoid repeating ourselves for your sake and mine…
Sorry dude, that is the truth, capitalism moves towards and HUGE acumulation of capital:
In 1871, the 20% richest were 7 times as rich as the 20% poorest. Today they are 87 times richer or more.
The richest 1% control 80% of the wealth.
No. The only way Rockefeller or this railroad king would have a monopoly would be they are violating liberty. Anybody can start a business and if their business is providing something that can best bring the product to the worker that’s not a monopoly. That’s called good business. Another company is free to try to provide a better product and market such a product better, but as long as the business is providing what’s meeting the market demand the worker/consumer having choice will choose what’s best.
No, it’s not. Your comedy might play on revleft or huffpo, but not here.
Here’s an interesting fact for you: not only did Rockefeller drop the price of a can of oil during this time to a cool 5 cents, but his market share decreased from a high of 86 or so % down to around 40-something% by the time he was hit with antitrust. Of course: those are just things called FACTS. Perhaps you’ve not taken the time to acquaint yourself with them. I suggest you do. Now.
If you agree property rights aren’t natural, then no.
He can buy all means of comunication, if you agree that property can only be assured by physical coercion done by a state, then we are done and property would be the source of the lack of liberty. Elseway he could have private property achieved by dumpings, trusts, and holdings, etc.
Property hasn’t always existed, yet people were always born naked. Property rights are not natural, they appeared somewhere in history. Each people developed their idea of private propoerty in time, and made it a right by a social agreement.
It is natural we find the things we live with natural, form Hamlet, Sheakspeare: “I could live consealed inside a nutshell, and count myself king on infinite space”
Monopoly comes from mono = one and poly = property, he was the largest one he could afford a illegitimate competition by a dumping and crash ANY possible new business in the area.
Don’t foll yourself beliving such promisses of the market, in that time the GREAT majority of the population lived in terribly poor conditions, as the workers fought against the market and gainned laws (that regulates the market, being therefore against free-market) such as minimum wage, payed vcations, retirement, etc.
And how probable is that? ,
Yes, it has. People may not have had the concept, but it has always existed. Property rights are natural; they are what we bring to the table when dealing with other humans. We each have property in ourselves. Yes, I’ve heard all the childish outbursts against that idea, but I don’t care about that epic intellectual fail.
Well, we suffered more than a hundred years of progressive policies designed by the social democrats and people are now more poor than before ?! Go figure…
So we don’t have a capitalists society. You are talking about mixed economies where businesses have privileges granted by the state. For instance … bailouts.
But I’m sure that in practical terms all the people killed by the commies would prefer to be alive and poor in a mixed market than dead in russia.
What is “the natural law”? Is it that rain always falls down? That every organism is doomed to die? That we are always nourished by bread? That the day is always twenty-four hours? In addition, what are the true principles by which we men can deduce “the natural law”, or can we only induce it through experience?
An antitrust is used to avoid the market tendency towards monopoly, it regulates the market, once capitalism claims to be a free-market system, this antitrust that hit rockefeller was a strike against capitalism.
Grasp of history: you don’t has it.
Seriously: education pays off. But if you wish to make yourself look like a fool–by all means.
Ok, now prove that coercive monopolies can happen in the absence of government fiat. And prove that the market tendency is toward that, given the fact that the actuality is that you can’t have a coercive monopoly without government fiat, so there is no such market tendency. And then prove that it could even happen with a so-called natural monopoly.
Yeah, it’s called “not regurgitating refuted to death tosswad leftist garbage”. You might want to look into it.
1st I don’t defend what happened in Russia;
2nd This is not the place to discuss this;
3rd People are not poorer than before, it is the capital that is more accumulated.
How about speaking in absolute terms with units rather than ratios so that we know how the poor in 1871 are doing compared with the contemporary poor?
Perhaps there is a causation between how the poor are doing, and the accumuation of capital - ever heard of economies of scale?
Property is not defined by the amount of people in a given area. It is defined by control of things. Alone, each human has the property in his person.
Can you explain your concept of “natural?”
Life is not a right. Rather, the right to exercise your faculties free from aggression so as to experience life, that is a right. Property is not defined as a right, it is defined as control of things. The right to property is a right, it is not property in and of itself.
Property is not a social agreement. I don’t need people around me to confirm that I exist. So long as I exist, I have property in my person.
I don’t have to pay to defend myself or my property, or even to persuade my aggressors. I have the right to defend myself (derived from the right to the property in my person), therefore I have the right to delegate that power to anyone who will voluntarily agree. Defense agencies have no inherent right to defend people, and people have no inherent obligation to hire them.
The market. In other words, the sum total of voluntary exchanges. Why would billions of prosperous, free humans allow a tyrant to wreck humanity? People represent themselves, they need no tyrant to ruin their lives.