[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CARVER', 'I')n the case of the poor man I do advocate theft so he can survive, but I would choose a less destructive/violent approach by letting the government collect taxes. But there is no need for me to advocate theft, because I think this will happen all by itself when you get extreme concentration of wealth. The mutual protection agreement will fall apart, because it will no longer be mutual benefitial. If the group, that can benefit more by breaking the rules, will get big and organized they can cause a lot of destruction to others, but it will be progress for them. They might start a revolution, take control, redistribute property. Those who are doing well currently should have an incentive to keep this game going, but that is not going to happen if we keep pushing more and more people in a corner. If we want to continue playing this game then we have to give the others a reason to play, instead of making them desparate to the point of sabotaging or knocking over our precious board game. Can you call it progress when we advance to the point of collapse? It is not just about justness or who deserves what, it's about what is mutual benefitial.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'I')t is quite valid to have government intervention to limit the dominance of any one company in any one sector. This is especially valid when the sector has high barriers to entry or when the sector tends to be a natural monopoly.

You're right it is protectionism in the name of competition. There is no paradox; the possibility of anti-competitive practices is seen as a larger danger to competition than the actual small amount of protectionism inherent in anti-trust laws. The laws have problems but the reason for their need is quite apparent. If you cannot see it I must hazard to guess that it is because your ideology is interfering with your objectivity.

[Free]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'Y')ou're playing a very dangerous game when you start to advocate theft in order to reorganize society in a pattern that you find more acceptable. This is the ideology that extremely bloody wars have been started over. Why do these Serbs/Israeli/Hutus have all this land that they clearly don't deserve? We Bosnians/Palestinians/Tutsis need to claim our land back.

The next thing you know the mass graves are full of innocent people, the land is destroyed, and the distribution of property is even less fair than it was before. You seem to think that abolishing the right to property is just a formality for reorganizing a just society. It's not. The wealthy have a lot of power, more than you think, and most of the time in a fight over property, they win.

You cloud your argument in an apocalyptic prophecy of collapse, but you create a self-fulfilling prophecy when you trigger a war. The collapse comes for the revolutionaries, and all the innocent caught in their way.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Free', 'I')t will always collapse.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'K')eep dreaming about your glorious proletariat seeing its back against the wall and triggering the revolution you wish so hard for. It's not going to happen. Prosperity is the outcome of capitalism, not violence.

[CARVER]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'Y')ou're playing a very dangerous game when you start to advocate theft in order to reorganize society in a pattern that you find more acceptable.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', ' ')The theory is that monopolies raise prices. The reality is that they don't! If you can't understand this, you have no arguments to make.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'T')he theory is that monopolies allow the monopolist to raise their profit margins to a higher level than they otherwise would have been. It doesn't say anything particularly about price. Since we don't know what the price would have otherwise have been it is hard to say what the effect of the monopolist's position is on the price.

We don't really know if the price would have been lower if there had been more competition. We don't really know if the industry would have developed or innovated more quickly if there had been more competition.

[Free]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Free', 'I')t will always collapse.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hen where the hell is the justification for expropriating this company? You don't know what the consequences of your action is? How can you possibly justify it? Based on feelings? Why don't you make a law outlawing apartment rentals. You don't know why it's bad, you don't know if the law will make people better off, but damn it feels like the right thing to do!

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'A')s I said initially the law has problems and I would not attempt to defend any particular set of anti-trust laws. But the justification for limiting monopolies is to maintain a minimum amount of competition exactly because we don't know what the right price should be and therefore wish an efficient market to price the good or service.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'A')s I said initially the law has problems and I would not attempt to defend any particular set of anti-trust laws. But the justification for limiting monopolies is to maintain a minimum amount of competition exactly because we don't know what the right price should be and therefore wish an efficient market to price the good or service.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'T')hey're my laws are they? I find it just a bit ironic that the libertarian here is arguing against prices being set by a free and competitive market in favour of monopolistic posted prices that would inevitably result in greater government intervention in setting those posted prices.

[threadbear]

Jaws, You're monopolizing this thread. Where are the regulators? *Sigh*

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'I') am not arguing against a free and competitive market. I am in favor of it, and you are arguing against it by promoting protectionism for uncompetitive businesses while labelling your stance as pro-competition. That you declare government intervention to be inevitable is testament to how anti-free-market you are.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'N')o I'm being realisitc. In areas where there are already monopolies such as public utilities you usually have some sort of utilities commission that oversees and regulates the tarriffs charged by the investor owned utilities. That's what the electorate demands when they are subjected to a private monopoly.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o now you are an interventionist as well as a protectionist? Kommissar Nero, I am afraid no one can take your claims of being pro-free-market seriously anymore.