note also, again, your term “exploit” could reasonably apply when a government is in there limiting the choices
It can, and does.
, but not otherwise. a government-coddled corporation can exploit workers in the sense that they can offer them very low wages while at the same time using the government to keep out competitors who would have otherwise been bidding up wages.
There will still be police and courts to be bought. Now we’re moving into the realm of anti-statism, or anti-government in general. But if you get rid of the police, who will protect your property?
i suppose to be very very precise you could say that any company that gets too big, even in ancap, could start to exploit and gouge…but part of the theory is that companies would not get big without government to help them, so you may want to consider the possibility that that is a moot concern.
What evidence is this “theory” based on? You’re right that “companies” don’t get exploitive without “government” help. But only insofar as how you define the terms. What is the difference between a company, and a cartel; between a government and a state? Imo, it’s just a matter of degree.
What bearing does this have on the present theoretical discussion? We are talking about prices in the free market, nothing else. We have already established that firms can fix prices “artificially high” through state-granted monopolies. That was never in question.
What discussion could there be had if this thing could never exist? It is my opinion that the “free” market is nothing more than an ideal. It’s all in how one defines their terms. My follow up question still stands in an ancap society.
I’m sorry, but I can’t make sense out of any of this. I didn’t know that catering to the consumer and offering the best price is “exploitation”. It must be a product of your extremely confused understanding of catallactics. In regards to the last sentence, I am not sure about what you are trying to say. You are right. The largest confusion comes from a difference in the definition of terms. Exploit; as in, to take advantage of. I use it in this sense, to varying degrees, everytime I use it.
“Catering to the consuer and offering the best price (sic)” is a means to an end; profit. Once again, if you’ve ever had to exploit a market, you should know this. Your business doesn’t grow if you don’t profit, and you don’t attract more investors if you don’t grow. I will refer you back to my links (https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/i-love-the-state-post-office/16545 ) on what the “best” price means in real capitalism.
What does people losing home and their jobs have to do with price gouging?
A consumer gets gouged, sure it may be his ignorant fault. But now he defaults on his mortgage.
A cartel gouges out the competition, a worker loses her home. She defaults on her mortgage.
To say that the first supreme court case was a regulation of a market actor says absolutely nothing about the circumstances which said case revolved around. There were plenty of antitrust cases throughout the history of the United States; none of them had anything to do with actual monopolies.
It’s all in how you define your terms. One should start with the “free market.”