Wanted to get the opinions of libertarians on this board, regarding monopolies and free markets.
Would a free market still allow monopolies to form if a few corporation decided to band together and buy out the rest of the competition?
>>69572178
Not a libertarians but it'd be more difficult
Part of how many monopolies form is from lobbying the government to close out opposition through various means
>>69572178
The libertarian response is that monopolies have only and do only form when physical coercion (done via the state) prevents a member of the cartel from undercutting the others.
When you do not have a state, as in the black markets, free flowing violence ensues until a compact is made or dominance solidified.
However, in the real world, you're trying to argue a theoretical with libertarians in a position that does not and has not ever existed, and does nothing to refute the basic premise that libertarian-directed policies DO result in freer and more prosperous societies, and right now the problems are flowing from statism and the materialistic humanist pseudo-religious culture.
>>69572178
Natural monoplies don't remain monoplies for long in a truly free market
>>69572735
A small thought experiment. One man owns all the earth, what freedom is there for others? Or if that is too unrealistic for you, a couple dozen families own all the earth, what freedom is there for others?
Only magical thinking gets around the necessity of the Lockean proviso, Libertarians have no answer to the reality that feudalism can occur.
>>69572178
that picture made me shudder. the fuck?
>>69573634
>A small (((((thought experiment)))))
Your Jewish tricks are a waste of time.
Over the wall you go.
>>69573634
>One man owns all the earth
this could literally never happen
>>69573756
Big talk for a man living in a country which supplies Jews with their army.
>>69572178
There is nothing wrong with free market monopoly.
libertarians have over and over again been proven to be the dumbest bunch on /pol/. There is a reason a lot of mormons are libertarians.
>>69573634
>others
Why are they on his planet? They have whatever freedoms (aka in this context permissions) are contractually agreed.
>>69572178
roll for jewish name
>>69573992
My army makes sure you can pay for comfy faggoty socialism and rapefugees so why don't you back off of it with your fucking stroopwafels
>>69573634
Whats wrong with contractual feudalism?
OP volkish ultra nationalist societies (thank god) could exist in libertopia, a contract is a contract.
>>69573728
It's quite Orwellian, isn't it.
>>69574402
Says the nigger.
>>69572178
In a free market a monopoly can't shit on the consumer. If they did competition would just undercut them.
If a few corporations banded together to form a cartel, the economic incentive to break the cartel and undercut the rest becomes greater and greater with time so one of them will break.
>>69574491
Lets say all the feudal rules are Jews and they only keep the volkish ultra-nationalists around to cuck them with the right of the first night ... doesn't seem utopia to me.
>>69574888
And?
Since when has liberty ever been "utopia" (aka "no-place")?
You can't have monopolies in a libertarian society with polycentric law and private defense agencies, read rothbard.
>>69575084
So I don't acquiesce to libertarianism and allow government force to give me a different dystopia.
>>69575198
Read Rothbard. Especially the parts about native indians and why their use of land didn't constitute homesteading and then the parts about how the ocean can be homesteaded. Good for a laugh.
>>69574676
This is the ideal, anyway. In reality, without at least some regulation, there's nothing stopping a large corporation from pushing out any and all prospective competition. It's especially bad with highly used goods or services that require a lot of capital, infrastructure, or operating costs to compete.
Imagine a perfectly free market society where a single company sells internet to everyone. One day they jack the prices up. Now if someone wants to compete with lower prices, they first have to take on the burden of laying new infrastructure (why would the "corrupt" company let this new competitor share), they have to take on all of the operating costs, and their service won't be compatible with what everyone else is already using.
Capitalism is a good thing. Free market is a good thing. But at least a little regulation is needed.
![kermit-memes[2].png](https://i.imgur.com/TlZEcn4.png "kermit-memes[2].png")
>>69575700
My preferite part of rothbard is the part about non agression principle and child rights.
>>69576297
They could take a massive loan for it, with the basis that the company will be able to turn a profit by undercutting the other firm
>>69575700
>and then the parts about how the ocean can be homesteaded.
>he's never been to Sealand
>>69576486
that would take too long. sure it would happen, but people aren't going to wait around and suffer without these things over some ideology
>>69576468
>Tony
>Mcdaniel
You can't fool me, Ireland
>>69576603
If you peddle it to them with the right upbringing and marketing they might
>>69576297
Oh, and to mitigate all of the risk the new company would take on, they would probably take shortcuts to reduce costs and lie to the consumer because who's stopping them? Imagine if we didn't have the FDA.
>>69576720
If the company jacks up their prices and a competitor physically cannot compete with them for 5 years due to infrastructure problems, the people will NOT wait for that competitor. they will ask the state to force the company to lower the price
>>69576649
Fuck off retard.
I for one, find dipoles to be more physically interesting than monopoles.
>>69577071
Physically?
>>69576848
But a pure monopoly has to form for an essential good in the first place for that to happen right? How would that actually occur?
And if the good is NOT essential, then it's got elastic price elasticity of demand, and for the firm to make money it will be lowering the price by a lot to catch more people and get them to buy it.
>>69576848
I'm not a libertarian btw, I just find this argument interesting to look at
>>69577237
Elastic goods are where the free market ideology works best. Inelastic is really the problem. Hence the classic "muh roads" argument.
As far as how would a monopoly occur? I'm just speculating, but again if a lot of infrastructure is required, especially on some new product, it might be that only one company (or a couple colluding companies) have taken the risk before the product became so popular.
>>69576297
OK, so the first company has such an insurmountable amount of resources they can afford to push away every existing competitor, buy out all their infrastructure and hike up prices to the point where they're losing money because of it, since their customers are pushed to rationing and illegally sharing internet, meanwhile all other potentially interested companies can't afford to start laying infrastructure and compete in even one small area of their domain? Do you see how skewed this example is?
*Sent over my 7 euro/month unlimited 50mbps internet
>>69578004
Ah right, well if it's an essential good then it will have been an established need already unless we're going to delve into really weird hypotheticals like systematic drug use or microchips or stuff like that
