Alberta Government 2005 Budget Released

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Tron_fdc@Apr 14 2005, 06:07 PM
I took it from your article. It mentioned something along the lines of dismantling governemnt as we know it, and letting the people more or less police themselves. South Africa (and in particular J-burg) is a pretty good example of a dismantled government since apartheid. It went from a highly regulated police state to a state where there is a government (and a ruler) but utter chaos when it came to law enfocement.

Dismantled government? I don’t think so. SA it is nowhere near anarchocapitalist society.

When Mandela was elected to govern South Africa in 1994, he appointed elected parliamentarians such as communist party leader Joe Slovo to high-ranking government posts. South Africa now has a high rate of taxation, restrictive labor laws, is Africa's largest welfare state and has Africa's largest, most politically well-connected and politically influential labor union movement.

Many mainly non-white South Africans have never attended a school, including thousands in the 20 to 30 age group who are deemed to be unemployable in an economy that presently has little need for an abundance of unskilled manual labor. This situation has contributed to South Africa's skyrocketing crime rate which has reached epidemic levels. Following South Africa's ban on gun ownership, disarmed citizens in record numbers have fallen victim to crime, including to armed gangs of criminals. This crime epidemic has not only overwhelmed a police force coping with low morale and a high officer suicide rate, it has also discouraged foreign as well as expatriate entrepreneurs and business people from bringing new investment into South Africa, to further develop and grow the economy.

South Africa's present day economics minister, Trevor Manuel, is a firm believer in Keynesian economic theory and regards it as the economic system that best offers hope for his nation's economic future.

South Africa's epidemic of state spending to prop up a decaying apartheid system during its final years, reflected comments published by Keynes in General Theory about the alleged economic benefits of state spending. If Keynes's theory was valid, then an economically prosperous and viable economic system based on apartheid, complete with independent black states (homelands) inside South Africa, should still have been functioning at the present day. South African government spending to defend apartheid during the 1980's perhaps inflicted more damage on South Africa's economy than the economic sanctions imposed on South Africa could ever have achieved. Excess state spending during apartheid's last years incurred a massive deficit that now impedes economic growth in the post-apartheid South Africa.

South Africa's long term economic future appears bleak due to the policies that the nation's government has already enacted. The disarming of the civilian population has left it at the mercy of armed criminals. Its economic regulations have restricted badly needed wealth creation and economic growth, while the Keynesian spending spree achieved a similar end.

South African government officials have put their trust in the policy guidelines and loans from the IMF, but the projects they funded have not created any new wealth in South Africa's economy. The water development project they funded is resulting in mass evictions of South Africa's unemployed and poor people.

Now you tell me where you see free market anarchism in that. I see the exact opposite.

The Saga of South African`s Economy

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Apr 14 2005, 06:06 PM
Nothing is wrong with paying for services you need within reason, what happens is when there becomes Monoplies on large infrastructure.

Take Hospitals for example, in a city this size, everyone needs healthcare and in your lawless society what happens?

Quite simple: There becomes Cartels in order to maximise profit. Or Monoplies depending on the size of the city.

You can't have essential services unregulated by government in a position of power over the state.

You think people would seriously "regulate themselves" with regards to those services? Give me a break.

I don’t know what you mean by “regulating themselves.” Maybe you should elaborate.

As for monopolies, again what do you think is a monopoly? To me, monopoly is a grant of special privilege by the state. Ceteris paribus there can be no monopoly on free markets.

As for a cartel, there is nothing wrong with a cartel. Two or more companies cooperate. So what? If they keep prices artificially high, it will create a window opportunity (for profits). Voluntary cartels formed for the purpose of restricting output and raising prices are inherently unstable. There will always be an incentive to cheat on the cartel agreement and produce more than the assigned quota. Even if the members of the cartel can reach an agreement and obey it, if they are truly earning “above normal” returns, outsiders will enter the industry.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Apr 15 2005, 01:05 AM
Who guarentees respect of Private Property? Under this system; the police and judiciary.

Under Flame's system... no one. You take care of yourself, and god help you if you're outnumbered (of course, people in a state of nature are never evil, just politicians in our corrupt 'order').

Utopia.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by FOL
Now you tell me where you see free market anarchism in that. I see the exact opposite.

OK. I read your post, and while in theory it seems that there has been some type of government control and regulation in SA I can assure you, when I was there I didn't see it. Neither did the residents I spoke with. In theory they are trying to implement a government. In reality, there are areas where absolutely none exists.

I'm not an economist. I can only speak from personal experience here, so while you would like to analyze and debate what you think is the literal interpretation of your beliefs I'm only relaying what I saw and felt first hand. My statement stands, and again this is my opinion, that while I was there I experienced something that to me, felt a whole lot like there was little to no laws unless you lived in a gated, fenced, white community. It's as close to anarchy as I have felt (or would like to feel, for that matter) and if you don't agree with that, and wish to continue interpretation of free market anarchism, maybe you should go visit downtown Johannesburg sometime to see how long you last before someone robs you for the change rattling around in your pocket.

I don't agree with how you see things, you don't agree with how I see things. We'll leave it at that I guess.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Apr 15 2005, 11:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Apr 15 2005, 11:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Apr 14 2005, 06:06 PM
Nothing is wrong with paying for services you need within reason, what happens is when there becomes Monoplies on large infrastructure.

Take Hospitals for example, in a city this size, everyone needs healthcare and in your lawless society what happens?

Quite simple: There becomes Cartels in order to maximise profit. Or Monoplies depending on the size of the city.

You can't have essential services unregulated by government in a position of power over the state.

You think people would seriously "regulate themselves" with regards to those services? Give me a break.

I don’t know what you mean by “regulating themselves.” Maybe you should elaborate.

As for monopolies, again what do you think is a monopoly? To me, monopoly is a grant of special privilege by the state. Ceteris paribus there can be no monopoly on free markets.

As for a cartel, there is nothing wrong with a cartel. Two or more companies cooperate. So what? If they keep prices artificially high, it will create a window opportunity (for profits). Voluntary cartels formed for the purpose of restricting output and raising prices are inherently unstable. There will always be an incentive to cheat on the cartel agreement and produce more than the assigned quota. Even if the members of the cartel can reach an agreement and obey it, if they are truly earning “above normal” returns, outsiders will enter the industry. [/b][/quote]
If you don't see the problems with Cartels... Well...

Now the Monopolies part... you don't think there can be monopolies in a free state? I'll give you 2 examples, both current.

Rockefeller and Standard Oil - When oil was first discovered (this was when the US was about as close to free market as it has ever been), Rockafeller started up his oil company, bought all the means of production, then proceded to start buying up all of the Oil companies in the US. Eventually he was brought down by a series of court rulings saying he had a monopoly, Standard Oil was split in 2 and the rest is history.

If you wanted to buy Oil in the South, you bought it from Rockefeller.

Bill Gates and Microsoft - This is your example of the modern Software monopoly, and not only that, but without regulating him, we'd probably be 100% microsoft. This guy props up Apple/Mac computers so he can at least give the illusion of competition.

Now In this specific situation, we gravitate toward the monopoly, designers, engineers only want to have to design 1 piece of software which is compatable with all systems, hence why the Windows operating system is in over 95% of the PCs.

Now, unregulated Microsoft would be scary. Sorry, competition would be squashed instantly, unless there was an extremely radical change/new ideas.

The only reason Microsoft hasn't been broken up is because the industry wants the ease of only having to really design software for one system. Don't fool yourself though, Microsoft is on a short leash which is why Gates doesn't exploit it to his full advantage, hes more than happy to be the richest man in America. If he does overstep his bounds, hes got the US government and millions of anti-trust lawyers who will pounce on him in a heartbeat.

I see absolutely nothing in the system you support to prevent these problems short of Vigilante justice.

Now for cartels? That effectively is a group of businesses with a self imposed Monopoly.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

FOL, your view of things is so pie in the sky I'm not even sure where to begin.

We can quite clearly NOW see the detriment that a pure focus on the bottom line (money) causes in a variety of industries. When money is the only motivator then exploitation, monopolies, etc are bound to follow. As several people have sagely pointed out there needs to be some sort of regulation of key industries. Environmental concerns go out the window with no regulation. Resources would be exploited to their maximum potential. Addiction would be exploited with companies doing whatever they can to get customers hooked on an addictive substance (see Tobacco). And Tobacco isn't the worst of it, you don't think a heroin company would be sticking everybody they can find with needles to get everyone they possibly could be addicted? Of course they would. New, more addictive drugs would probably be developed.

Companies do not have YOUR best interests at heart. They would be motivated by power and money. The rich would get richer and do EVERYTHING they could do to ensure they stay rich and that no competition survives.

Your "theories" don't mean much when real world examples proven them flawed. I can't believe you seriously think the world would be a better place with companies running it. The problems are so obvious I can't believe you openly advocate the idea. The way I figure it you either must irrationally hate gov't for whatever reason or you're a billionaire and you have your own selish interests at heart. I can't see anybody else buying into these quite obviously flawed ideas.

:wacko:

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Apr 15 2005, 11:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Apr 15 2005, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Apr 15 2005, 01:05 AM
Who guarentees respect of Private Property? Under this system; the police and judiciary.

Under Flame's system... no one. You take care of yourself, and god help you if you're outnumbered (of course, people in a state of nature are never evil, just politicians in our corrupt 'order').

Utopia.

[/b][/quote]
That's what I thought.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Apr 15 2005, 06:38 PM
If you don't see the problems with Cartels... Well...

Now the Monopolies part... you don't think there can be monopolies in a free state? I'll give you 2 examples, both current.

Rockefeller and Standard Oil - When oil was first discovered (this was when the US was about as close to free market as it has ever been), Rockafeller started up his oil company, bought all the means of production, then proceded to start buying up all of the Oil companies in the US. Eventually he was brought down by a series of court rulings saying he had a monopoly, Standard Oil was split in 2 and the rest is history.

If you wanted to buy Oil in the South, you bought it from Rockefeller.

Bill Gates and Microsoft - This is your example of the modern Software monopoly, and not only that, but without regulating him, we'd probably be 100% microsoft. This guy props up Apple/Mac computers so he can at least give the illusion of competition.

Now In this specific situation, we gravitate toward the monopoly, designers, engineers only want to have to design 1 piece of software which is compatable with all systems, hence why the Windows operating system is in over 95% of the PCs.

Now, unregulated Microsoft would be scary. Sorry, competition would be squashed instantly, unless there was an extremely radical change/new ideas.

The only reason Microsoft hasn't been broken up is because the industry wants the ease of only having to really design software for one system. Don't fool yourself though, Microsoft is on a short leash which is why Gates doesn't exploit it to his full advantage, hes more than happy to be the richest man in America. If he does overstep his bounds, hes got the US government and millions of anti-trust lawyers who will pounce on him in a heartbeat.

I see absolutely nothing in the system you support to prevent these problems short of Vigilante justice.

Now for cartels? That effectively is a group of businesses with a self imposed Monopoly.

Standard Oil was broken up in 1911. At the time, its market share was 11 PER CENT and the company faced fierce competition from Associated Oil and Gas, Texaco, Gulf, and 147 other independent refineries. How on earth is that a monopoly?

Standard Oil was guilty of innovation, vast expansion of production, and rapidly-declining prices.

The efficiencies of economies of scale and vertical integration caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 10 cents by 1874, and to 5.9 cents in 1897. During the same period Rockefeller reduced his average costs from 3 cents to 0.29 cents per gallon.

Its less successful rivals sought to achieve through politics what they failed to accomplish in the marketplace. Finally, they succeeded.

Forced break up of Standard Oil was a shame and a robbery.

And virtually the same thing goes for Microsoft. Microsoft is not a monopoly, as anyone who has ever heard of Unix/Linux can tell you.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Apr 18 2005, 02:06 PM
Standard Oil was broken up in 1911. At the time, its market share was 11 PER CENT and the company faced fierce competition from Associated Oil and Gas, Texaco, Gulf, and 147 other independent refineries. How on earth is that a monopoly?

Standard Oil was guilty of innovation, vast expansion of production, and rapidly-declining prices.

The efficiencies of economies of scale and vertical integration caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 10 cents by 1874, and to 5.9 cents in 1897. During the same period Rockefeller reduced his average costs from 3 cents to 0.29 cents per gallon.

Its less successful rivals sought to achieve through politics what they failed to accomplish in the marketplace. Finally, they succeeded.

Forced break up of Standard Oil was a shame and a robbery.

And virtually the same thing goes for Microsoft. Microsoft is not a monopoly, as anyone who has ever heard of Unix/Linux can tell you.

Wikipedia disputes your claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

By 1878 Standard Oil held about 90% of the refining capacity in the U.S. In 1882 the company was reorganized as the Standard Oil Trust.

And,

A trust system was set up at Standard Oil in order to allow the oil businesses in different states to be headed by the same board of directors. The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, a holding company for the Rockefeller enterprises, was broken up after the United States Supreme Court declared the arrangement to be an "unreasonable" monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 15, 1911, though Standard Oil's share of the market had been steadily declining from 1900 to 1910 (Standard's share of oil refining was 64% at the time of the trial, in competition with over a hundred other refiners)

I think you were talking about one division of Standard Oil, The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey.

Most economists agree that Standard had a monopoly over the US domestic market. I'm sure you'd wager that they're wrong, but I'll put my money on them over you, most any day.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Ooo ooo, let me play! University students, especially those in political science, pay attention. My $20 000 bachelors degree in political science allows me to do..... this!:

Seems to me the views here can more or less be summed up in the theories of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. FOL, I suspect, would be more inclined to support Locke's theories regarding property and the state of nature. Without the state present (the state of nature), Locke saw humans as being mostly honourable and able to keep promises, where property rights and peace existed. He cited the American frontier (similar to the Wild West example perhaps?) as one example of how people in a stateless society were still able to function. The function of the state was, in essence, simply to provide unbiased justice in society as humans gave up, to the state, their right to revenge on others for wrongdoings done against them. Other than this the state should keep out of people's affairs as society preceeded the state according to Locke. People remained in the state of nature with the creation of the state.

Hobbes, on the other hand, basically felt people were constantly at war in the state of nature. Thus, without the state society could not exist and everyone lived in constant fear of one another. The state created an artificial society where people could live. So after the creation of the state everyone was bound and controled by the state as without it, chaos would ensue. Humans gave up all rights to the state except for the right to self preservation: basically, the right not to be harmed or killed. People stepped out of the state of nature in Hobbesian society.

So there you have it, my little rant on the subject! I suppose which side you are more inclined to side with may depend on what constitues harm against yourself, as both philosophers maintained the right of the individual to defend themselves from harm. So would a monopoly of a company like Standard Oil constitue harm against someone?? Or is it just physical harm?? Locke believed all people deserved access to enough property to sustain themselves, as to deny them otherwise did equal harm (Hobbes also had similar feelings). Money, on the other hand, could be accumulated in excess as one person having alot of money was not seen as harming other people (again, Hobbes also had similar feelings). I suppose that little tidbit is certainly debatable, however. But I guess I am more inclined to support Locke's notion of society as opposed to Hobbes' as I too think the state should play a rather small role in people's lives. Butt out and leave people to their own designs, I say.

Anyways, I just wrapped up a big, big essay on this subject so I felt the need to put my knowledge to use now as I intend to forget everything I learned this year as soon as finals are done...

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Apr 18 2005, 02:02 PM
Ooo ooo, let me play! University students, especially those in political science, pay attention. My $20 000 bachelors degree in political science allows me to do..... this!:

$20,000? What's you get, the discount degree? No self respecting student can whine about tuition without at least $30k in student loans

Just kidding.

I don't think that's it though. I think FOL would disagree with both Hobbes and Locke. He'd say he wants no state at all (obviously i'm putting words in his mouth which may or may not be true).

Either way I've always found the anarchist's ideas kinda funny. People will flap their wings and fly before they'll stop organizing in some way. And once they organize, you've got a state.

Of course, I also find it kinda funny that people get all worked up over the idea of corporations meddling in public affairs. As though governments have done such a bang up job

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Apr 18 2005, 08:02 PM
Wikipedia disputes your claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

By 1878 Standard Oil held about 90% of the refining capacity in the U.S. In 1882 the company was reorganized as the Standard Oil Trust.

And,

A trust system was set up at Standard Oil in order to allow the oil businesses in different states to be headed by the same board of directors. The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, a holding company for the Rockefeller enterprises, was broken up after the United States Supreme Court declared the arrangement to be an "unreasonable" monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 15, 1911, though Standard Oil's share of the market had been steadily declining from 1900 to 1910 (Standard's share of oil refining was 64% at the time of the trial, in competition with over a hundred other refiners)

I think you were talking about one division of Standard Oil, The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey.

Most economists agree that Standard had a monopoly over the US domestic market. I'm sure you'd wager that they're wrong, but I'll put my money on them over you, most any day.

I knew you will come up with wikipedia.

I have my numbers from papers published by university scholars, so it is your call whom do you believe.

Anyway, this opens one interesting problem – HOW do you define relevant market? Geographically – city, state, country? Or maybe total industry output (oil) and then you divide it by the number of competitors? Or maybe you define relevant market as all people buying gas, i.e. relevant market is the final product market? Or maybe you take number of all gas stations within certain area, and then you work out percentages for every competitor? Which one takes precedence?

Why does refining capacity matter, why not something else? Essentially, you can tailor anti-trust laws against every big company, because if you define relevant market “correctly” it will almost always have a “monopolistic” share in such “market”. Does “share of the market” equals to “share of oil refining”? I don’t think so.

And after all, is a 64 per cent share of any of the above monopolistic? Give me a break.

[Flame Of Liberty]

I don't think that's it though. I think FOL would disagree with both Hobbes and Locke. He'd say he wants no state at all (obviously i'm putting words in his mouth which may or may not be true).

That is correct. I only agree with some of Locke’s ideas.

Disagree with Hobbes (obviously). Its funny, Hobbes argues that in the state of nature, men would constantly be at each others’ throats (hello Agamemnon). Yet somehow he thinks that regardless of how bad men are, the king, the judge, democratically elected president (all cutthroat humans) will be magically transformed into kind human beings caring about their fellow men. In the state of nature, where men are after each other, one puts a sticker reading “state” on his forehead and suddenly he becomes an ultimate judge and peacemaker?


Either way I've always found the anarchist's ideas kinda funny. People will flap their wings and fly before they'll stop organizing in some way. And once they organize, you've got a state.

State is NOT a voluntary organization. It should be obvious. I don’t see how voluntary free market cooperation must turn into state coercion.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Apr 19 2005, 03:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Apr 19 2005, 03:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Disagree with Hobbes (obviously). Its funny, Hobbes argues that in the state of nature, men would constantly be at each others’ throats (hello Agamemnon). Yet somehow he thinks that regardless of how bad men are, the king, the judge, democratically elected president (all cutthroat humans) will be magically transformed into kind human beings caring about their fellow men. In the state of nature, where men are after each other, one puts a sticker reading “state” on his forehead and suddenly he becomes an ultimate judge and peacemaker? [/b]

Well the sovereign is elected at the creation of the state. There are 'Natural Laws' that must be followed, but they all can be summarazed in the saying 'do onto others as you would have done onto yourself!' (right to self preservation, remember...) Also of note is the fact that basically whatever the sovereign says or does becomes 'right' by definition. Sovereign defines what is good and what is bad and all that mumbo jumbo...

<!--QuoteBegin-Bend it like Bourgeois

$20,000? What's you get, the discount degree? No self respecting student can whine about tuition without at least $30k in student loans

Just kidding.
[/quote]

Haha, yeah well, I sorta rounded it off too 5k a year but that definitely is lower than what it really is, I agree...

[CaramonLS]

I'm not here to debate crackpot theories about standard oil. If you truely beleive they owned 11% of the market, go take it up with the US department of records. Maybe you can get JD's oil company back for him.

How is 64% a monoploy?

If someone owned all of the hospitals in Newfoundland?, what % would that be? 2? 3? Would it be a national monoploy? No, but it would be a provincial monopoly on the healthcare system.

Under your system, anyone could make a hospital. Thats great! Because Hospitals cost money, and not everyone has the money to put into large infrastructure. This is exactly what happened with our telecommunications in Alberta, 1 company owned it and if it wasn't for government regulations, tough.

My comments weren't to discuss the legitimacy of this subject, but rather to give you some examples of why they are bad for society. You haven't given me 1 single piece of evidence stating otherwise (apart from your ramblings saying monopolies are state imposes [ha], and you really don't see the harm with limitless competetion).

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Apr 19 2005, 09:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Apr 19 2005, 09:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Apr 18 2005, 08:02 PM
Wikipedia disputes your claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

By 1878 Standard Oil held about 90% of the refining capacity in the U.S. In 1882 the company was reorganized as the Standard Oil Trust.

And,

A trust system was set up at Standard Oil in order to allow the oil businesses in different states to be headed by the same board of directors. The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, a holding company for the Rockefeller enterprises, was broken up after the United States Supreme Court declared the arrangement to be an "unreasonable" monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 15, 1911, though Standard Oil's share of the market had been steadily declining from 1900 to 1910 (Standard's share of oil refining was 64% at the time of the trial, in competition with over a hundred other refiners)

I think you were talking about one division of Standard Oil, The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey.

Most economists agree that Standard had a monopoly over the US domestic market. I'm sure you'd wager that they're wrong, but I'll put my money on them over you, most any day.

I knew you will come up with wikipedia.

I have my numbers from papers published by university scholars, so it is your call whom do you believe.

Anyway, this opens one interesting problem – HOW do you define relevant market? Geographically – city, state, country? Or maybe total industry output (oil) and then you divide it by the number of competitors? Or maybe you define relevant market as all people buying gas, i.e. relevant market is the final product market? Or maybe you take number of all gas stations within certain area, and then you work out percentages for every competitor? Which one takes precedence?

Why does refining capacity matter, why not something else? Essentially, you can tailor anti-trust laws against every big company, because if you define relevant market “correctly” it will almost always have a “monopolistic” share in such “market”. Does “share of the market” equals to “share of oil refining”? I don’t think so.

And after all, is a 64 per cent share of any of the above monopolistic? Give me a break.[/b][/quote]
Oh.

Well, I sourced my information. Your source consists of I have my numbers from papers published by university scholars.

From what I recall of university, its not enough to say 'smart people say it', you have to actually provide what they said, so that others can peruse it.

Unless it doesn't exist, in which case, I understand it would be difficult to provide a source.

A 64% market share is massive (when the market is the United States). Wal-Mart currently has about 10% of the US market share and is bigger than God. What do you think a monopoly is, 100%? Go ask your 'papers' and 'university scholars' what they think a good number would be.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Apr 19 2005, 02:26 AM


Either way I've always found the anarchist's ideas kinda funny. People will flap their wings and fly before they'll stop organizing in some way. And once they organize, you've got a state.

State is NOT a voluntary organization. It should be obvious. I don’t see how voluntary free market cooperation must turn into state coercion.

It is obvious. The state IS a voluntary organization. Some state policies are not voluntary, which is to say the rules exists whether you like them or not. There is effectively no difference whether those rules are set by the market, or by a legislature - ultimately both are simply extensions of what people want.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Apr 20 2005, 01:02 AM
Oh.

Well, I sourced my information. Your source consists of I have my numbers from papers published by university scholars.

From what I recall of university, its not enough to say 'smart people say it', you have to actually provide what they said, so that others can peruse it.

Unless it doesn't exist, in which case, I understand it would be difficult to provide a source.

A 64% market share is massive (when the market is the United States). Wal-Mart currently has about 10% of the US market share and is bigger than God. What do you think a monopoly is, 100%? Go ask your 'papers' and 'university scholars' what they think a good number would be.

You are an *******, there is no other way to put it.

The Gates-Rockefeller Myth by Thomas DiLorenzo, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, teaches economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

and

Dominick T. Armentano., professor emeritus at the University of Hartford, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, a member of the editorial board of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and author of Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure and Antitrust: The Case for Repeal

Lastly, if you had more than 2 living brain cells you would realize that I NEVER said that market share is the determinent as to whether or not a particular company is a monopoly. But you are too dense to grasp that. Big surprise.

[Agamemnon]

You are an *******, there is no other way to put it.

Not surprising to find you descending to basic name-calling.

Lastly, if you had more than 2 living brain cells you would realize that I NEVER said that market share is the determinent as to whether or not a particular company is a monopoly. But you are too dense to grasp that. Big surprise.

Well, you did say,

And after all, is a 64 per cent share of any of the above monopolistic? Give me a break.

I was merely responding to your simplistic question with a simplistic answer.

Interestingly enough, the author of the article makes the same plain error that you made (most likely because you're simply repeating the article), stating that Standard Oil held only 11% of the market in 1911. I find it odd that such a reputable scholar would a) not footnote his work (making it a pure opinion peice) and b) massively simplify the aspects of Microsoft/Standard's business practises and economics in about 500 words. This is your 'source'? Wikipedia, an awful source, blows this out of the water.

The industry’s output of refined petroleum increased rapidly throughout this period--just the opposite of what mainstream monopoly theory would predict. In 1911, the year in which the federal government forced the breakup of Standard Oil, the company faced fierce competition from Associated Oil and Gas, Texaco, Gulf, and 147 other independent refineries. Because of this competition Standard Oil’s market share fell from 88 percent in 1890 to a mere 11 percent by 1911.

[Flame Of Liberty]

FDW, you seem to be a reasonable fellow, so I don’t really understand why are you so quick to dismiss anarchocapitalist theories you know very little about (judging from your post).

We can quite clearly NOW see the detriment that a pure focus on the bottom line (money) causes in a variety of industries.

What detriment? Also, who is to say that pure focus on the bottom line is the only way to go? There are companies/people who do not measure success purely in terms of money. But even if they do, it’s their money and they are (should be) free to focus on whatever they want (as long as they don’t aggress against other persons property). I don’t see that as a problem, maybe you should clarify why you see that as a problem.

When money is the only motivator then exploitation, monopolies, etc are bound to follow.

Well, we discussed exploitation at length, and there was no proof that workers on free market (who willingly work for their company) are exploited. The term itself comes from marxism, which sees trade as a zero sum game. In other words, marxists think that what one gains, someone else must lose. This view is simply false. Trade is a positive sum game, where both parties gain (and no other party loses). Value is always subjective, not objective. If I give you a baseball bat and you give me a hockey stick, it should be obvious we both won, because I value hockey stick higher than bat, and you value the bat higher than a hockey stick. So how is one of us exploited, and in what way?

Environmental concerns go out the window with no regulation.

This is off topic, but if you are interested in in-depth discussion why this concern is false, check out Rothbard_Law Property rights and Air pollution

Resources would be exploited to their maximum potential.

Which is a good thing, no? Better than wasting them away? Besides, only owners of particular resources can use (not exploit) it. So people concerned about preserving particular resources (say rainforests) are free to buy them and keep them preserved.

Addiction would be exploited with companies doing whatever they can to get customers hooked on an addictive substance (see Tobacco). And Tobacco isn't the worst of it, you don't think a heroin company would be sticking everybody they can find with needles to get everyone they possibly could be addicted? Of course they would.

That would be an attack against property (body). Therefore it would be illegal. Don’t you think people would defend themselves against weirdos sticking needles into them?

New, more addictive drugs would probably be developed.

Yeah, but people are free to choose whether or not they start using drugs. If they choose to do so, then that’s too bad, but it is entirely their fault. BTW people will do drugs no matter what, democracy or not. Prohibition simply does not work.

Companies do not have YOUR best interests at heart. They would be motivated by power and money. The rich would get richer and do EVERYTHING they could do to ensure they stay rich and that no competition survives.

I never said they have. In fact, I don’t care. But as long as they want my money, they have to give me what I want. You don’t eat a piece of bread because the baker loves you, but because he has to satisfy your need in order to get your business (money). Basically, this is Adam Smith’s Invisible hand:

Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.