neither can account for any variation

So, how do we get there.

@SageTheory the solution is simple, monopolies form far easier with government assitance, take away government and there will be far less monopolies

not exactly

government substides hurt COMPETITION

Okay, any historical precedence for the claim?

but don't HELP nor create monopolies

there is a difference between the only game in town and say Standard Oil

i mean, facebook was the first, twitter was the first

they didn't have to destroy competition to corner the market

Like I said, I'm game to hear the argument. But I'm also dubious.

they CREATED a new market

so one is a monopoly and the other isn't

Erm.. Myspace. >.<

Oh my god it’s mananimal

but they didn't interfere with myspace

I thought you were gone

myspace just couldn't compete

FB crushed Myspace and Livejournal

again, leave the thinking to others lol

exactly

but because they presented a better product

So to say that FB didn't have competition is dishonest.

so then FB did **not** create a __new__ market, and were not first?
make up your mind, pls

not by employing dirty business practice

They just happened to steamroll them.

@ManAnimal yea myspace came before facebook, facebook grew far larger when it got in bed with the government

techincally you are right

BUT those other platforms had a BB gun

If your talking utilities then yes technically so but those are formed because it's easier to have one water company than multiple water companies. I'm talking anticompetitive monopolies that hurt the economy.

@Terry Arcona that's cuz they're operating on govt software <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

vs the Cannon FB developed

And if I dig deep, probably find other competition as well.

so we are in agreement, fb isn't a monopoly at least it wasnt..... at FIRST

Nonetheless less the BB Gun v Cannon is a fair analog.

it's only later that they start employing unfair tactics against those trying to enter the market it becomes a monopoly

(Fuck, I shouldn't have taken that drive now that I sat down and the intoxicants are hitting.)

And yes silicon valley is a problem but I don't think ancaps have an answer to it because they have no way in breaking up monopolies.

many forget that a monopoly is defined by how a company treats other competitios NOT customers

@ManAnimal well technicaly even with the government aid it's gotten it's still not quite a monopoly but it's damn close

it's hard to monopolize on the internet

true. but 'gov aid' isnt' always a bad thing. in fact, it is the ONLY way a gov can operate with a free market

It's more of a cornered market.

the 'ideal' gov simply takes money from one interest and pays it towards another interest of competing interest

Technically social media isn't operating as a monopoly.

They are operating in cohoots, though.

@SageTheory government doesn't break up monoplies either, atleast not the ones that are bed with government which is practicaly all of your fortune 500 and up companies today

so if people vote they would like more public transit rather than cars, i charge a premium for driving the cars and every dollar from that goes ONLY to public transit. zero sum

Yes that's a problem

TELL ME HOW ANCAPS WILL HANDLE IT THO.

@ManAnimal if companies are recieing government subsidies it's no longer a free market

so i don't make cars 'illegal' i just compartmentalize and by doing so, i encourage investment in trainsit tech which makes the cost come down

we aren't talking about companies

follow my example

don't make up your own and say it doesnt work; focus on my example and tell me how it doesn't work

i never mention a company receiving a subsidy

The resting argument of AnCap seems to be that the gov't enables bad habits due to favoritism and nepotism.

Because saying no govt = no monopolies is false and also it's not so bad to where it's crippling the economy.

i said the gov pays for trains with dollars raised by taxing car owners

@SageTheory AnCaps handle it by not handling it, monoplies simply form less with out government, AnCaps don't promise there wont be any but there will certainly be far less

the gov pays a compnay for a product (trains) just like any other customer

xD

Okay

exactly Laucvioui

So they don't have an answer

they focus on the shit implementation

We just have to take their word.

rather than comparing ideal to ideal first

Alright, the thing about as said monopolies still form.. and have even more power than they would under mixed economies.

corruption is everywhere, we know. but ideally, for the sake of comparison, we pretend it doesn't exist so we can assess the merits of ancap vs republic

They would nothing would stop them. Even though we have monopolies only a few really get away with forming them.

(@ManAnimal "Capitalism hasn't been done right, yet." I know what you mean, but it falls into the same problem as the fierce Communists there.)

not sure what you mean exactly but i do agree in general

@ManAnimal the biggest corruption is seen between corporate back room deals with government

eliminate government you take away alot of the corruption

Thing is that sans wider gov't anti-trust laws in place gets to the same badness.

the KEY difference is that while i can describe the ideal mechanisms of capitalism they cannot describe the ideal mechanisms of communism

I'll give you that.. ergo why I caveated I know what you mean.

capitalism rests of 'capital being a storage of value' and any implementation would lay along a spectrum of how well it acheives that metric

ah, ok

@Terry Arcona what qualities would a society have to have for it to count as anarcho-capitalist

hey,, I thought you died last month?

@Terry Arcona Most of us are trying to find out how to make AnCap work, TBH.

my heart did

In fact read up on Rockefeller he accomplished his monopoly with colliding with other companies.

I really want the idea to be functional... but I just don't see how.

personally, I would LOVE to be the electrical engineer that developed the first cloaking device and create Galt's Gulch with it

but... Dreams vs Reality

be sure not to confuse

As I've said numerous times is/ought.

the idea doesn't really seem coherent to me

also, how about this observation: "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I shall never work solely for the sake of another man...."

Ought AnCap be able to function in ideal? Yes. Is humanity able to make it so? As Death in June just said.. doesn't seem to be.

^^^ can this saying be applied to both MEN and WOMEN?

i don't agree with the first part

capitalism is inherently anti-anarchist

or does one have to devout themselves to the family for it to work?

sticky question

Eh, I'll give any ideal a shake.

Ancaps are more unreasonable then commies