most people simply refuse to question the concept of democracy because of, quite frankly, their indoctrination at a young age. People also implicitly assume the the success of the US is evidence for the superiorty of democracy...even though they would probably understand that this is a logical falllacy if they bothered to think about it.
i'm happy to find people who are able to think more freely on the subject....in fact you have made some points on the subject that I did not even consider.
Any system of allocating resources that gives equal weight to people that are unequally affected by the outcome is undesirable.
For example, a survivalist who lives in the middle of nowhere and is unaffected by government actions shouldn't have the same say as someone who lives in an urban community.
The market does not suffer from this problem when goods and services are provided.
Can you explain in detail how a "A stateless order / polycentric law / private law society." operates? Possibly a video, if you don't presently have one in your archives. Truth bless.
@bitbutter - That book almost single-handedly convinced me that market anarchy could work operationally. His chapter on police, courts and law on the open market is one of the most elaborate descriptions of why anarchy need not be chaos.
David Friedman is working on a third edition, but for now I am telling as many people to read the PDF that's out right now.
@ministerabdallah Roderick Long, who is one of my favorite contemporary libertarians, has an excellent and insightful video lecture called "Anarchist Legal Order." You should definitely give it a try :)
@bitbutter Really?!! I agree with you on most points, but you seem very naive to me.
I think we need more "constitutions" making it clear what a gov can and can't do. And... wait for it... I'd prefer a global gov with local (even to the size of a town) self rule, as long as the locals don't break the Global constitution (think Human Rights).
Constitutionalism: the belief that you can grant an entity a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and ultimate decision making power, and then realistically expect it to keep its promises. That _does_ seem extremely naive.
@ILYIAB "I never said I was a Constitutionalist. I said we need documents like The Deceleration of Human Rights to rule on city/town level."
It amounts to the same thing: pinning your hopes on the fantastic idea that an entity with a monopoly on the initation of force and ultimate decision making power (gov) can be trusted to keep its promises. I think its naive to believe it can.
In this video I'm suggesting that anyone considering a case for a stateless society should do so bearing in mind the knowledge that democracy has serious problems, and that there are reasons to believe it is unsustainable.
To you i'm suggesting that it's smarter to have power spread widely, rather than concentrate it in a ruling elite and hope that they behave themselves.
Democracy has many problems, which you pointed out in your video, and I agree with them. So what's the option?
Do you agree with me that some ppl are wiser and smarter than others? (Locally some understand the needs better, globally some are more adept to deal with such problems?)
The more "smarter to have power spread widely" the greater chance of corruption. China actually has this. I lived in China for 5 years.
@ILYIAB "The more "smarter to have power spread widely" the greater chance of corruption. "
No. Exactly back to front. The more monopolistic an entity, the more likely it will behave in ways that are not beneficial to 'consumers' of its product--including bribe taking corruption etc. The state is the ultimate monopolist. Basic stuff.
@bitbutter " monopolistic an entity"..We are on the same page but talk different languages.
I can tell you've never been to China. In the eyes of the world, China is a State. In the eyes of the Chinese, they are 4 major races with 100's of tribes in each race. They are extremely selfish and self-centered. I never met ppl this bad and deceiving, who don't care or give a shit about anything. If they can stab you in the back for a profit, they will.
@ILYIAB "In the eyes of the world, China is a State"
China (in full: the People's Republic of China) is a state. Not up for debate I'm afraid. Power is not spread widely, it's concentrated in the state, just like it is in any place under state rule.
@bitbutter True. I'm saying that you don't understand what's beneath. Beijing is trying to get Shanghai under control.
We still have Hong Kong SAR, and Macao SAR, if you want to get stingy. I love HK. Love NY. And London. Great cities.
China is the wild west of the 1880 in the US. But it happens now. I've seen and experienced it. There is no need too worry about China as a world power. Not until my grandkids are grown. China will either collapse on itself or bow to international rules.
I think your representation of the problems of todays democracies is very accurate, what I'm asking myself is if a free market society won't face similar problems.
Sadly many customer seem to not be very well informed and sometimes even desinterested in the broader or long term implications of their choices as customers.
If many people have a problem to grasp even the basic principles of economics, how can we expect a free market society to work out well?
@DeletedDelusion "..problems of todays democracies.." It applies to all democracy as far as I can see.
"..customer seem to not be very well informed.." Perhaps because they know that being in formed will not affect their ability to change anything, very much.
"..grasp even the basic principles of economics.." In a free society, perhaps people will have an incentive to learn some basic economics because their actions will have effects on them. (Just my opinion).
@zalida100 Is it really true that customer decisions make no difference, or might it be that way to many people are ignorant about the power the potentially have in their hands with their decisions as customers (even today)?
"Perhaps people will have an incentive...." One would also think that people would have an incentive to cast their votes, but only about half of the population does. I think a free market society would demand much more participation of the people then the current system.
@DeletedDelusion "..true that customer decisions make no difference.." No. It's true in some areas I think. e.g. Public schools - parents don't have much effect on how schools operate. They can have a limited effect on the types of groceries they buy - e.g. FDA does not allow labeling on food that is GMO even though many customers want the labels. So they are prevented from choosing. They have to guess.
But, they can choose to go to a movie or not to go to a particular movie. They have an effect
@DeletedDelusion "..people are ignorant about the power the potentially have.." Yes. This is obviously true. If people understood the potential, it may make a difference. Most people would rather have a peaceful society, I think.
"..people would have an incentive to cast their votes.." No. I don't think so. This is where lots of people are rationally ignorant. They understand that their vote makes no difference. mises (dot) org(/)daily(/)5058(/)Why-Vote
In Hoppes book you mentioned (which I still haven't finished reading) it appears to me that, the continuation of democracy should eventually lead to higher and higher time preference until there will be near zero incentive for investment, hence very serious de-civilisation.
Good job of explaining the "rational ignorance" thing too. I think I understand your video reasonably well, so I ain't got no questions for you today - hehe.
@PostITnoteGUY none of this address how this simplifies things for people who find it to hard to research the memorandums of parties, the issue I was addressing. If your ideology solves this problem, please tell me how.
What annoys me about this video is you point out hat voters need to have knowledge of like this would be allievated in an arachocapitalist system. Who polices the police? Who monitors food safety? Who sets the standards on workers' rights? Who keeps a check on corporate ties? Who monitors the media? The individual would be responsible for all these in you model.
Would you subscribe to a defense agency known for brutality by its agents (corresponding legal losses translated to higher fees), or one known to defend its clients against said brutality?
"Who monitors food safety?"
Whoever can meet whatever demand there is for transparent, dependable, assurances of food safety most efficiently.
@bitbutter you miss the point... this takes research or at least reliable reporting in the media. NONE of which is provided for under anarchocapitalism. The lowest common denominator wins. Or else individuals need to find out for themselves, which was one of your problems with democracy.
@Brascofarian "this takes research or at least reliable reporting in the media. NONE of which is provided for under anarchocapitalism"
So there's no demand for reliable reporting? And there's no demand for credible assurances of reliability in reporting? Or it's impossible to provide such reporting in a financially viable way? To the extent that any of these are true, reliable media reporting is equally unlikely to happen under either statism or anarchy.
@Brascofarian "Or else individuals need to find out for themselves, which was one of your problems with democracy."
No. The problem was that to be an informed voter requires effort that is nowhere near compensated by the expected reward of having done that research. The personal penalty for voting for a bad policy is effectively zero, the penalty for subscribing to the 'wrong' defense service, or misjudging the reliability of a licensing agency is much higher.
@bitbutter "The problem was that to be an informed voter requires effort that is nowhere near compensated by the expected reward" amazing... here's me thinking that people are busy working, raising families, etc. being short of time, rather than being disillusioned by the fascinating realities of running society.
@Brascofarian "Who sets the standards on workers' rights?"
Workers, who will sell their labour to the buyer offering the most attractive compensation (inc working conditions).
"The individual would be responsible for all these in you model."
Not for all these. But in each case, 'regulatory power' will be concentrated in the hands of those who stand to personally suffer significantly in the case of misconduct--and is therefore highly incentivised to be informed, and vigilant. Not like voting.
@bitbutter This just creates a confusing number of middlemen that people have to research, or take on hearsay... which is more likely do you think, given your understanding of how democracy has fared?
@Brascofarian "This just creates a confusing number of middlemen"
The extent to which this confusion is a problem is the extent to which there is market pressure towards simplification, adoption of common standards, incorporation, collaboration mergers etc. The result will tend towards an optimum tradeoff between diversity/competition and standardisation/simplification.
@bitbutter who regulates the regulatory power if individuals don't research it? Who knows they stand to personally suffer until they've personally suffered? Who knows they are even suffering if that is the norm they are born into. Slaves didn't free themselves... and that suits capitalism.
@Brascofarian "who regulates the regulatory power if individuals don't research it?"
I already explained why individuals are *much more likely to research* when there are direct and potentially serious penalties for not having done the research. This is not the case when voting for bad policy.
@Brascofarian "Stateless solutions are as unsustainable as ideas come."
All stateless solutions? Worse than the inherent problems in democracy I just explained? I'd like to see anyone attempt to support such a bold assertion.
"That is why, in the evolution of human society it has died out."
Evolutionary 'just so' stories are easy to fabricate. Naturalistic fallacy wearing a Darwinian tuxedo. Not compelling.
@bitbutter I agree, it was a bold assertion, and I am playing devils advocate to some point, but I am serious about the evolution of human society. I have some sympathy for the fairness of anarchism to a point. As Inmendham has pointed out though, your model is unworkable because of the inequalities in capital and how that plays out in a "free" market.
I think you are wasting so much time on an ideology that will never get off the ground because sadly fairness is not the prerogative of our lives
@Brascofarian I'm not interested in fairness (eg equality). I'm interested in absolute welbeing. I don't know what Inmendham has said, and I'm not motivated to search for it. You're welcome to explain the argument if you like.
@bitbutter The basic point Inmandham made is that there are inequalities of wealth, and through inheritance you get people weilding a lot of power without actually deserving it. This leads to undeserving people having the wealth to corner markets...(e.g. through sitting on a loss until the competitors fold) and leaving the individual with not competitive option.
@Brascofarian "and through inheritance you get people weilding a lot of power without actually deserving it."
As i said, I'm not interested in equality--and this sounds like an appeal to that. What are these inheritors of wealth going to do with that wealth, given that they don't have the option of rent seeking via a state? Two basic options: they can use it for consumption, or they can invest it. The only way they can hold onto wealth is to use it to create value for others.
@Brascofarian Of course they can advertise (consumption). Just as pols and firms can under statism. As usual, its not clear what you think your point is here.
@Brascofarian "(e.g. through sitting on a loss until the competitors fold)"
Assuming that the competitor is equally efficient to the predatory firm, the predator will be taking bigger losses than its prey for the duration of the attack, also weakening its position wrt all competitors. Even if the attack is somehow successful, there's a limit to how often it can be employed, but no limit to the new competitors who'll need to be attacked in the same way. This isn't a viable long term strategy.
@bitbutter It doesn'tt matter how efficient they are, if they have a lot less capital, they fold first. That's the point. Explain to me the limit. I'd like to know, for example, how we can work out Googles limit on controling the internet, that would be insightful, because I've just described their practice, all fair and good by free market capitalism.
I thought i already did. A firm's capital, and credit lines are not infinite. Predatory pricing (to defeat equally efficient competitors) is not a sustainable general strategy because bankruptcy will happen before the endless supply of new competitors dries up.
most people simply refuse to question the concept of democracy because of, quite frankly, their indoctrination at a young age. People also implicitly assume the the success of the US is evidence for the superiorty of democracy...even though they would probably understand that this is a logical falllacy if they bothered to think about it.
i'm happy to find people who are able to think more freely on the subject....in fact you have made some points on the subject that I did not even consider.
idlenessss 4 months ago
@idlenessss very well put together video.
kbdkbd99 1 week ago
I think this video is spot on.
Any system of allocating resources that gives equal weight to people that are unequally affected by the outcome is undesirable.
For example, a survivalist who lives in the middle of nowhere and is unaffected by government actions shouldn't have the same say as someone who lives in an urban community.
The market does not suffer from this problem when goods and services are provided.
HexTest 10 months ago 2
Can you explain in detail how a "A stateless order / polycentric law / private law society." operates? Possibly a video, if you don't presently have one in your archives. Truth bless.
ministerabdallah 11 months ago
@ministerabdallah It's already been done in a few places: See the book "The Machinery of Freedom" (free online pdf) for one example.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Thank you. Truth bless.
ministerabdallah 11 months ago
@bitbutter - That book almost single-handedly convinced me that market anarchy could work operationally. His chapter on police, courts and law on the open market is one of the most elaborate descriptions of why anarchy need not be chaos.
David Friedman is working on a third edition, but for now I am telling as many people to read the PDF that's out right now.
HexTest 10 months ago
@ministerabdallah - Google "But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?" by Robert P. Murphy on the Mises Institute blog.
It's probably the best introduction on both the cost of war as well as why private entities have a stronger incentive to prevent it.
HexTest 10 months ago 2
@ministerabdallah Roderick Long, who is one of my favorite contemporary libertarians, has an excellent and insightful video lecture called "Anarchist Legal Order." You should definitely give it a try :)
KingLeon1daz 9 months ago
@KingLeon1daz Thanks, I will.
ministerabdallah 9 months ago
Good job pointing out these defects. Are there any alternatives that do not have worse defects?
seanmPWH 11 months ago
@seanmPWH Imo a stateless, private law society wouldn't have these, or worse defects.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Really?!! I agree with you on most points, but you seem very naive to me.
I think we need more "constitutions" making it clear what a gov can and can't do. And... wait for it... I'd prefer a global gov with local (even to the size of a town) self rule, as long as the locals don't break the Global constitution (think Human Rights).
ILYIAB 11 months ago
@ILYIAB "you seem very naive to me"
I don't think I am, of course.
Constitutionalism: the belief that you can grant an entity a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and ultimate decision making power, and then realistically expect it to keep its promises. That _does_ seem extremely naive.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Of course... As I said before, I agree with you on many points.
I never said I was a Constitutionalist. I said we need documents like The Deceleration of Human Rights to rule on city/town level.
ILYIAB 11 months ago
@ILYIAB "I never said I was a Constitutionalist. I said we need documents like The Deceleration of Human Rights to rule on city/town level."
It amounts to the same thing: pinning your hopes on the fantastic idea that an entity with a monopoly on the initation of force and ultimate decision making power (gov) can be trusted to keep its promises. I think its naive to believe it can.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter I'm not really sure what you suggest.
The way I see it, is that we all live on the same planet. Today we need to solve problems on a platery scale. This wasn't the case 200 yrs ago.
I don't like nationalism. We are Earthlings. And we can't have local ppl ruining the rest, or immoral acts go on without consequences.
Seems to me that you are talking about what has been thought of. What about what we can think of?
ILYIAB 11 months ago
@ILYIAB "I'm not really sure what you suggest."
In this video I'm suggesting that anyone considering a case for a stateless society should do so bearing in mind the knowledge that democracy has serious problems, and that there are reasons to believe it is unsustainable.
To you i'm suggesting that it's smarter to have power spread widely, rather than concentrate it in a ruling elite and hope that they behave themselves.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter So on the face of it, we agree.
Democracy has many problems, which you pointed out in your video, and I agree with them. So what's the option?
Do you agree with me that some ppl are wiser and smarter than others? (Locally some understand the needs better, globally some are more adept to deal with such problems?)
The more "smarter to have power spread widely" the greater chance of corruption. China actually has this. I lived in China for 5 years.
Again, what can you think of?
ILYIAB 11 months ago
@ILYIAB "The more "smarter to have power spread widely" the greater chance of corruption. "
No. Exactly back to front. The more monopolistic an entity, the more likely it will behave in ways that are not beneficial to 'consumers' of its product--including bribe taking corruption etc. The state is the ultimate monopolist. Basic stuff.
"China actually has this."
No it doesn't. China is a state.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter " monopolistic an entity"..We are on the same page but talk different languages.
I can tell you've never been to China. In the eyes of the world, China is a State. In the eyes of the Chinese, they are 4 major races with 100's of tribes in each race. They are extremely selfish and self-centered. I never met ppl this bad and deceiving, who don't care or give a shit about anything. If they can stab you in the back for a profit, they will.
ILYIAB 11 months ago
@ILYIAB "In the eyes of the world, China is a State"
China (in full: the People's Republic of China) is a state. Not up for debate I'm afraid. Power is not spread widely, it's concentrated in the state, just like it is in any place under state rule.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter True. I'm saying that you don't understand what's beneath. Beijing is trying to get Shanghai under control.
We still have Hong Kong SAR, and Macao SAR, if you want to get stingy. I love HK. Love NY. And London. Great cities.
China is the wild west of the 1880 in the US. But it happens now. I've seen and experienced it. There is no need too worry about China as a world power. Not until my grandkids are grown. China will either collapse on itself or bow to international rules.
ILYIAB 11 months ago
@ILYIAB "So what's the option?"
A stateless order / polycentric law / private law society.
"Do you agree with me that some ppl are wiser and smarter than others?"
Sure.
"globally some are more adept to deal with such problems?"
No one is capable of being a central planner. See the economic calculation problem.
bitbutter 11 months ago 2
I think your representation of the problems of todays democracies is very accurate, what I'm asking myself is if a free market society won't face similar problems.
Sadly many customer seem to not be very well informed and sometimes even desinterested in the broader or long term implications of their choices as customers.
If many people have a problem to grasp even the basic principles of economics, how can we expect a free market society to work out well?
DeletedDelusion 11 months ago
@DeletedDelusion "..problems of todays democracies.." It applies to all democracy as far as I can see.
"..customer seem to not be very well informed.." Perhaps because they know that being in formed will not affect their ability to change anything, very much.
"..grasp even the basic principles of economics.." In a free society, perhaps people will have an incentive to learn some basic economics because their actions will have effects on them. (Just my opinion).
zalida100 11 months ago
@zalida100 Is it really true that customer decisions make no difference, or might it be that way to many people are ignorant about the power the potentially have in their hands with their decisions as customers (even today)?
"Perhaps people will have an incentive...." One would also think that people would have an incentive to cast their votes, but only about half of the population does. I think a free market society would demand much more participation of the people then the current system.
DeletedDelusion 11 months ago
@DeletedDelusion "..true that customer decisions make no difference.." No. It's true in some areas I think. e.g. Public schools - parents don't have much effect on how schools operate. They can have a limited effect on the types of groceries they buy - e.g. FDA does not allow labeling on food that is GMO even though many customers want the labels. So they are prevented from choosing. They have to guess.
But, they can choose to go to a movie or not to go to a particular movie. They have an effect
zalida100 11 months ago
@DeletedDelusion "..people are ignorant about the power the potentially have.." Yes. This is obviously true. If people understood the potential, it may make a difference. Most people would rather have a peaceful society, I think.
"..people would have an incentive to cast their votes.." No. I don't think so. This is where lots of people are rationally ignorant. They understand that their vote makes no difference. mises (dot) org(/)daily(/)5058(/)Why-Vote
Yes free society = more participation
zalida100 11 months ago
In Hoppes book you mentioned (which I still haven't finished reading) it appears to me that, the continuation of democracy should eventually lead to higher and higher time preference until there will be near zero incentive for investment, hence very serious de-civilisation.
Good job of explaining the "rational ignorance" thing too. I think I understand your video reasonably well, so I ain't got no questions for you today - hehe.
Great video - Thanks
zalida100 11 months ago 2
@PostITnoteGUY thanks for giving me your bollocks. I'll make an ornament out of them.
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY none of this address how this simplifies things for people who find it to hard to research the memorandums of parties, the issue I was addressing. If your ideology solves this problem, please tell me how.
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@Brascofarian *manifestoes... m words.... I know a few.
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY bollocks.
Brascofarian 11 months ago
What annoys me about this video is you point out hat voters need to have knowledge of like this would be allievated in an arachocapitalist system. Who polices the police? Who monitors food safety? Who sets the standards on workers' rights? Who keeps a check on corporate ties? Who monitors the media? The individual would be responsible for all these in you model.
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@Brascofarian "Who polices the police?"
Would you subscribe to a defense agency known for brutality by its agents (corresponding legal losses translated to higher fees), or one known to defend its clients against said brutality?
"Who monitors food safety?"
Whoever can meet whatever demand there is for transparent, dependable, assurances of food safety most efficiently.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter you miss the point... this takes research or at least reliable reporting in the media. NONE of which is provided for under anarchocapitalism. The lowest common denominator wins. Or else individuals need to find out for themselves, which was one of your problems with democracy.
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@Brascofarian "this takes research or at least reliable reporting in the media. NONE of which is provided for under anarchocapitalism"
So there's no demand for reliable reporting? And there's no demand for credible assurances of reliability in reporting? Or it's impossible to provide such reporting in a financially viable way? To the extent that any of these are true, reliable media reporting is equally unlikely to happen under either statism or anarchy.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@Brascofarian "Or else individuals need to find out for themselves, which was one of your problems with democracy."
No. The problem was that to be an informed voter requires effort that is nowhere near compensated by the expected reward of having done that research. The personal penalty for voting for a bad policy is effectively zero, the penalty for subscribing to the 'wrong' defense service, or misjudging the reliability of a licensing agency is much higher.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter "The problem was that to be an informed voter requires effort that is nowhere near compensated by the expected reward" amazing... here's me thinking that people are busy working, raising families, etc. being short of time, rather than being disillusioned by the fascinating realities of running society.
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@Brascofarian Quote mining and sarcasm. Sleazy.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@Brascofarian "Who sets the standards on workers' rights?"
Workers, who will sell their labour to the buyer offering the most attractive compensation (inc working conditions).
"The individual would be responsible for all these in you model."
Not for all these. But in each case, 'regulatory power' will be concentrated in the hands of those who stand to personally suffer significantly in the case of misconduct--and is therefore highly incentivised to be informed, and vigilant. Not like voting.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter This just creates a confusing number of middlemen that people have to research, or take on hearsay... which is more likely do you think, given your understanding of how democracy has fared?
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@Brascofarian "This just creates a confusing number of middlemen"
The extent to which this confusion is a problem is the extent to which there is market pressure towards simplification, adoption of common standards, incorporation, collaboration mergers etc. The result will tend towards an optimum tradeoff between diversity/competition and standardisation/simplification.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter who regulates the regulatory power if individuals don't research it? Who knows they stand to personally suffer until they've personally suffered? Who knows they are even suffering if that is the norm they are born into. Slaves didn't free themselves... and that suits capitalism.
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@Brascofarian "who regulates the regulatory power if individuals don't research it?"
I already explained why individuals are *much more likely to research* when there are direct and potentially serious penalties for not having done the research. This is not the case when voting for bad policy.
bitbutter 11 months ago
Stateless solutions are as unsustainable as ideas come. That is why, in the evolution of human society it has died out.
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@Brascofarian "Stateless solutions are as unsustainable as ideas come."
All stateless solutions? Worse than the inherent problems in democracy I just explained? I'd like to see anyone attempt to support such a bold assertion.
"That is why, in the evolution of human society it has died out."
Evolutionary 'just so' stories are easy to fabricate. Naturalistic fallacy wearing a Darwinian tuxedo. Not compelling.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter I agree, it was a bold assertion, and I am playing devils advocate to some point, but I am serious about the evolution of human society. I have some sympathy for the fairness of anarchism to a point. As Inmendham has pointed out though, your model is unworkable because of the inequalities in capital and how that plays out in a "free" market.
I think you are wasting so much time on an ideology that will never get off the ground because sadly fairness is not the prerogative of our lives
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@Brascofarian I'm not interested in fairness (eg equality). I'm interested in absolute welbeing. I don't know what Inmendham has said, and I'm not motivated to search for it. You're welcome to explain the argument if you like.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter The basic point Inmandham made is that there are inequalities of wealth, and through inheritance you get people weilding a lot of power without actually deserving it. This leads to undeserving people having the wealth to corner markets...(e.g. through sitting on a loss until the competitors fold) and leaving the individual with not competitive option.
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@Brascofarian "and through inheritance you get people weilding a lot of power without actually deserving it."
As i said, I'm not interested in equality--and this sounds like an appeal to that. What are these inheritors of wealth going to do with that wealth, given that they don't have the option of rent seeking via a state? Two basic options: they can use it for consumption, or they can invest it. The only way they can hold onto wealth is to use it to create value for others.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter What, they can't use it in advertising? Pushing agendas in to the popular conscience? Jeez, I didn't realise.
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@Brascofarian Of course they can advertise (consumption). Just as pols and firms can under statism. As usual, its not clear what you think your point is here.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@Brascofarian "(e.g. through sitting on a loss until the competitors fold)"
Assuming that the competitor is equally efficient to the predatory firm, the predator will be taking bigger losses than its prey for the duration of the attack, also weakening its position wrt all competitors. Even if the attack is somehow successful, there's a limit to how often it can be employed, but no limit to the new competitors who'll need to be attacked in the same way. This isn't a viable long term strategy.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter It doesn'tt matter how efficient they are, if they have a lot less capital, they fold first. That's the point. Explain to me the limit. I'd like to know, for example, how we can work out Googles limit on controling the internet, that would be insightful, because I've just described their practice, all fair and good by free market capitalism.
Brascofarian 11 months ago
@Brascofarian "Explain to me the limit."
I thought i already did. A firm's capital, and credit lines are not infinite. Predatory pricing (to defeat equally efficient competitors) is not a sustainable general strategy because bankruptcy will happen before the endless supply of new competitors dries up.
bitbutter 11 months ago