God Bless The Government Monopolies

[Santa]

GOVERNMENT: If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait until you see our solutions.


http://youtu.be/GN_ltojgwzg

[iOWNme]

'Government Monopolies' - Is there any other kind?

No business man can create a Monopoly. He must first use the coersive force known as 'Government' in order to prevent other people from entering his market, otherwise known as COMPETITION.

There are no Robber Barons, Massive Corporations, 1% or any other mega wealthy elite in an open and free society. The ONLY way to become a 'too big to fail' entity in a free market system is to offer a superior product at an incredibly low price. Of course, when you do this, you will create even more competition in your area, thus making it impossible to ever gain 100% control over your market, as new and better products are always being introduced by smarter and more knowledgable individuals.

Look around you. What do you see?

[Twisted Titan]

Competition is a Sin.

Norman Rockerfeller.

[Libertarian_Guard]

"If you look at that picture for the 1964 election, you'll see I showed three different poses of Johnson―two of them smiling, but one of them grim, just like when we walked in that room. Lord, but those eyes of his could be cold."


Norman Rockwell


http://www.buzzle.com/articles/norman-rockwell-quotes.html

[singular_me]

monopoly medicine explained further in this vid

We discuss the pawnshop for gazillionaires, the Asia pivot as opium war 2.0 and the fact that should the Fukushima of Jamie Dimon’s derivatives book meltdown, and then TPP nations will not be able to do anything to try to stop it. In the second half, Max interviews Dan Collins of the China Money Report about the ‘China containment strategy’ that is the ‘Asia Pivot’ and TPP as the economic arm of that strategy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZh1YfFTNDY



'Government Monopolies' - [B]Is there any other kind? l... The ONLY way to become a 'too big to fail' entity in a free market system is to offer a superior product at an incredibly low price. [/COLOR]

[Hatha Sunahara]

The real problem is UNREGULATED monopolies. The monopolies will tell you that regulation is the problem. You can believe whatever you like. Regulation of monopolies in the western world started around the time of Henry VIII in England who regulated the prices charged by the London docks to shipowners who berthed their ships there, and stored their goods in warehouses at the docks. The docks were declared a Public Utility, and the king decreed that he had the power to dictate what prices to charge because it was his responsibility to promote the common good and the health of the economy. This idea of regulating public utilities carried down to highly capital intense natural monopolies like electric, gas, water and sewer companies where, because capital investment was so high, it was not in the public interest to duplicate capacity to promote competition. So, government granted these companies a monopoly (a service territory) preventing any competition, but reserved the right to regulate their prices and quality of service. That protected the buyers from being gouged, and allowed the producers a 'reasonable' rate of return on their capital. All in the public good.

The problems we have today with 'too big to fail' businesses--such as big banks--which are really publkic utilities is that they are not properly regulated. The Glass-Steagall Act regulated them, but was repealed during the Clinton Administration. The FDA does not regulate pharmaceutical companies, but promotes their monopoly and allows them to gouge consumers. The Department of Justice refuses to prosecute fraud cases by the big banks.

Monopolies don't have to be evil. They can be regulated for everyone's benefit. The fact that they are not--on just about all levels of government is evidence that the power structure in both business and government is a Kakistocracy--or rule by evil or incompetent people. The failure of government to regulate monopolies is not sustainable. In all unregulated monopolies, prices increase and service quality decreases. The population suffers, and the owners of the monopoly get rich like they were usurers.


Hatha

[iOWNme]

The real problem is UNREGULATED monopolies. The monopolies will tell you that regulation is the problem. You can believe whatever you like. Regulation of monopolies in the western world started around the time of Henry VIII in England who regulated the prices charged by the London docks to shipowners who berthed their ships there, and stored their goods in warehouses at the docks. The docks were declared a Public Utility, and the king decreed that he had the power to dictate what prices to charge because it was his responsibility to promote the common good and the health of the economy. This idea of regulating public utilities carried down to highly capital intense natural monopolies like electric, gas, water and sewer companies where, because capital investment was so high, it was not in the public interest to duplicate capacity to promote competition. So, government granted these companies a monopoly (a service territory) preventing any competition, but reserved the right to regulate their prices and quality of service. That protected the buyers from being gouged, and allowed the producers a 'reasonable' rate of return on their capital. All in the public good.

The problems we have today with 'too big to fail' businesses--such as big banks--which are really publkic utilities is that they are not properly regulated. The Glass-Steagall Act regulated them, but was repealed during the Clinton Administration. The FDA does not regulate pharmaceutical companies, but promotes their monopoly and allows them to gouge consumers. The Department of Justice refuses to prosecute fraud cases by the big banks.

Monopolies don't have to be evil. They can be regulated for everyone's benefit. The fact that they are not--on just about all levels of government is evidence that the power structure in both business and government is a Kakistocracy--or rule by evil or incompetent people. The failure of government to regulate monopolies is not sustainable. In all unregulated monopolies, prices increase and service quality decreases. The population suffers, and the owners of the monopoly get rich like they were usurers.


Hatha


Im not sure i understand what your saying here?

'Monopolies' are a CREATION OF GOVERNMENT. So, who exactly do you think should do the 'regulating' of these monopolies?

These two things are one in the same: There is no 'Government' without the MONOPOLY on force. There are no monopolies without the force of 'Government'.

In other words, Pizza Hut can not come to my home and force me to buy their pizza under threat of violence. But 'Government' can come to my home and demand i pay for a myriad of services i do not wish to use. Both of these entities are made up of mortal men. But one of these entities is IMAGINED to have a moral right to rule over individuals, and the other is not.

The moment you decide that mere mortal men will be given super human powers to be the 'regulators', you have contradicted the premise of individual self ownership, voluntaryism and the NAP.

[Hatha Sunahara]

In a world without government or rulers, would there still be laws? I believe that laws are necessary. Common Law recognizes that idea. In the absence of government, people can still get together and agree that certain practices in business are harmful to them, and avoid doing business with those who engage in such practice. You assume that monopolies would not exist in the absence of government. If everyone owns themselves and are free, and they observe some people forming a gang that threatens that freedom, does everyone just allow it to happen? You can form associations with other people to oppose such threats to your freedom. Would you call such associations 'government'? Or would they exist as 'mutual protection' associations to oppose threats from acquiring power over them? Is any pact for mutual protection a form of government? If everyone agrees not to engage in monopoly practices, would they be breaking the law if they did? Does individual self ownership mean you have the freedom to unfairly exploit others? Does it mean that life is a free-for-all? Doesn't 'monopoly' violate the non-aggression principle? How do anarchists deal with those who violate its principles?


Hatha

[iOWNme]

In a world without government or rulers, would there still be laws? I believe that laws are necessary. Common Law recognizes that idea.

Of course there would still be natural laws. These are the laws that existed before 'Government' was created. I call them Self Ownership, Voluntaryism, NAP. Those simple moral principles cover every single possible scenario of 7 billion people living together. If you violate any one of them, you violate them all.



In the absence of government, people can still get together and agree that certain practices in business are harmful to them, and avoid doing business with those who engage in such practice.

As long as each person is acting voluntarily, and they do not violate the natural rights of another in doing so, then yes i agree.



You assume that monopolies would not exist in the absence of government.

The very definition of a 'Monopoly' is a restriction on a certain Market. Without a 'Government', this is impossible.



If everyone owns themselves and are free, and they observe some people forming a gang that threatens that freedom, does everyone just allow it to happen?

I dont know what everyone else would do, i only know what I would do. But i can speculate that without the belief in 'Government' and 'Authority' people will see criminals for what they are and resist them. For two reasons mainly: 1-They know their isnt any 'cops' to save them, so they are put into a completely different mental state when dealing with a real threat. They actually act like a human being with a sense of survival. 2-They wont have the additional threat of being arrested by their own 'Government' for defending themselves, which makes them much less hesitant to use defensive force.


You can form associations with other people to oppose such threats to your freedom. Would you call such associations 'government'?Or would they exist as 'mutual protection' associations to oppose threats from acquiring power over them? Is any pact for mutual protection a form of government? If everyone agrees not to engage in monopoly practices, would they be breaking the law if they did?

No. Thats not what 'Government' is. Everyone has the right to use defensive violence to protect themselves or their property. But what 'Government' says is that they have the moral right to use violence in other situations as well (Offensively!). Which is a contradiction because no individual can use violence offensively. Voluntarily interacting DOES NOT create a 'Government'. When i mow your lawn for $10, and you pay me, we dont all of a sudden create special powers where we can now rob everyone to pay for our lawn mowing business. Walmart has thousands of employees all of them working voluntarily, and they even have security guards on site. Why doesnt anyone call them 'Government'? How do you think people would view Walmart if tomorrow they tried to force every American to pay a 'Walmart Tax'? Do you think people would resist?



Does individual self ownership mean you have the freedom to unfairly exploit others? Does it mean that life is a free-for-all? Doesn't 'monopoly' violate the non-aggression principle? How do anarchists deal with those who violate its principles?


Hatha


The word exploit is a euphemism. If in your example 'exploit' means violating the natural law, then no they cant do that because no individual has the moral right to do so. If on the other hand, 'exploit' means working harder than someone else, being smarter than someone else, being more gifted, talented, wise or funny, then yes because none of these things violate the NAP. I dont have any idea how other anarchists will handle each scenario, i only know what i would do. These arent 'anarchist' principles. 'Anarchism' is the direct result of natural law existing, not some political ideology. Self Ownership is what exists in reality. And since we are all the same species, no man has the right to violate this natural law in the name of 'Government' when 'Government' is nothing more than mortal men who do not have this right as an individual.