134 replies to this topic

[JLL]

If you have barely any money, what is there to defend?

Your health and the little money you do have.

What stops the person with the biggest security force stealing everyone else's stuff.

Who is the person with the biggest security force? The president. What stops him from stealing everyone else's stuff?

[chris w]

If you have barely any money, what is there to defend?

Your health and the little money you do have.

What stops the person with the biggest security force stealing everyone else's stuff.

Who is the person with the biggest security force? The president. What stops him from stealing everyone else's stuff?

In civilized world -the fact that in 4 years at best he will be trying to get re - elected by the voters ( if they are willing to get blood on their hands by voting that is ), The Tribunal Of The State ( that's what it's called in my country, I mean the highest instance watching over the president, prime minister and the whole government, that can take them to trial if they for example commited national treason or something, whose members are independent from the executive branch and the parliament ). Also the president is not in ultimate command of the army, he would have to convince enough generals to help him in the stealing plus the special forces and the police force. Other from that such a president would be ostracised by other leaders ( still, it's West we are talking about ) and UN could impose sanctions ( at least that's the idea ). The simple fact that the Western world hasn't wittnessed a dictator ( Bush was just a violent religious idiot ) in the last half century proves to me that this all is sufficient.

Edited by chris w, 28 May 2010 - 05:04 PM.

[JLL]

I guess you answered Lallante's question.

[EmbraceUnity]

I guess you answered Lallante's question.

Except you don't vote for private security forces.

Edited by progressive, 28 May 2010 - 09:21 PM.

[JLL]

Yes you do. With your wallet.

[EmbraceUnity]

Yes you do. With your wallet.

Not if you don't have any money in that wallet.

[Alex Libman]

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's pretty well established that the said cavemen actually did all these things effectively ( thus - pushing civilization forward ) without the slicest clue about respect for one's individual property rights, their group or another. [...]

Natural Rights are multifaceted economic phenomena that emerge gradually as civilization advances. The (A) conditions that make Rights beneficial, (B) the awareness of Rights being beneficial, and (C) the ability to protect Rights consistently together constitute the forces that create a "positive feedback cycle" of growth from the cavemen society of the past to a hypothetical scientific society of the future (which I envision as Anarcho-Capitalism).

When you have B without A you have hysteria in the name of irrational non-rights (ex. "positive rights", "animal rights") that would do more harm than good, and when you have C without A you have the tyrannical enforcement of those non-rights in violation of the actual Rights that do exist. When you have A&C without B you have religion, which stands the test of time because it is effective in providing evolutionary competitive advantage for a society, but most people can't logically explain why, and that is dangerous because the mindless momentum of religious tradition / power can stop being beneficial or start doing more harm than good. When you have A&B without C then you have crime with no power to stop it.

You need all three for a stable and progressive civilization.

It's also interesting that the emerging aesthetic of an Anarcho-Capitalist "renaissance man" is to balance all three aspects of civilization within one's own life. The A comes from hard sciences and technology, and it's no wonder that Ayn Rand's top heroes were architects, metallurgists, physicists, and inventors (and they might have been robotics programmers and seastead engineers today). The B comes from philosophy, ranging form hard econometrics to art and literature (and even some forum trolling along the way). As for C, that's the reason why most Anarcho-Capitalists never leave home without a gun (and/or a video camera), but there's a lot more to it than that - the ability to protect yourself also means securing your food supply (ex. greenhouses in your backyard), having solar panels instead of relying on power from the grid, and all other aspects of rugged self-reliance.

Edited by Alex Libman, 30 May 2010 - 01:06 PM.

[Alex Libman]

From the "Libertarian Rand Paul, Do You Like What He Stands For?" thread (where I've posted a number of other messages that I probably should have moved here):

Roads: My idea of privately owned roads would be stopping at every road to pay, is this incorrect? People would also have to go through the inconvenience of always having money on them so that they don't get stranded.

That's 20th century thinking. Most roads would be owned by local interests like individual homeowners, neighborhood associations, charter cities, business alliances, and so forth. It is in WalMart's best interest to make sure its customers can get there with optimal convenience. Some private roads would be financed by billboard advertisements and other creative means. If there are toll roads, your navigation system would know about them in advance, and you could set it to avoid any roads where you don't agree with the price / rules. Payments can be handled automatically via RFID. There's no profit in having a road one drives on, so the tolls would be reasonable, and probably vary based on circumstances - for example roads can be free at all times except peak hours, or you are free to drive on the slower 4 lanes but lanes 5 and 6 are for silver and gold members - the former can go 70 MPH and the latter 120 MPH.

And no hypothetical conversation about transportation in an Anarcho-Capitalist society would be complete without mentioning that we're on a verge of a cheap energy breakthroughs that will enable cheap tunnel boring machines (much fewer obstacles to building highways underground), and of course flying cars.

Police force: There's a law of the land, and leaving out the discussion of whether country x has a good one, it needs to be enforced. If someone kills another person, neither of whom had police insurance, what happens? Also, won't the law become some financial commodity so that people who are better customers get better service? So that they might just get away with breaking the law if they can pay.

This question is addressed in a dozen of Anarcho-Capitalist books, free audio books, podcasts, and so on.

Catching a criminal is in everyone's best interest, lest he comes after you next, and many local interests (or their insurance companies) would offer bounties. In a world with billions of armed individuals, billions of networked cameras (terrestrial and satellite), etc crime just simply doesn't pay. The choice of an arbitration agency can be a contentious matter between the defendant and the prosecution, but there are many ways of reaching a compromise on a neutral reputable arbitration agency that both parties trust. When one party routinely refuses reputable arbitration agencies and insists on a particular one, the possibility of corruption would be quite obvious to everyone.

Rescue services: I never know when I'm going to get stranded at sea or in the cold and get hypothermia. I don't won't insurance for that particular thing on my mind. Granted, if you're a caver or mountaineer, you probably do have some idea that that's going to happen to you. But if a ferry sinks and the private rescue team comes in, do they ask the people they rescue to pay up afterwards?

You cannot ask people to pay for a service they didn't explicitly agree to, but they did agree to your rules by coming onto your property. In a world where every square inch (including mountains, caves, antarctic, ocean, etc) is privately owned, rescue agreements would probably come with the territory. You always need to know whose property you're on and what their rules are, which with modern technology is as simple as a glance at your smart-phone / augmented reality glasses. Your tech aid can even beep to warn you if you approach a piece of property whose rules you haven't previously whitelisted. There's also the Right to Free Exit, which means if you end up on someone's property by accident (ex. a plane crash) you have to identify yourself and your situation and they have to permit a rescue operation to take you to safety.

Sanitation: How exactly would a water cleaning company work? Would my water providing company choose who should clean the water first so that I don't have to? Also, if my neighbour is poor and doesn't pay for sanitation, the building filth on his side of the fence is likely to start polluting the rest of the neighbourhood.

Most people will choose to live in neighborhood associations where everyone will be contractually obligated to maintain certain standards. Your agreement with your "water cleaning company", if you choose to hire one, is entirely up to you. If someone pollutes your property, they owe you restitution.

Education: Everyone should have free at the point of delivery education, it is central for social mobility and destroying the poverty trap.

You cannot force someone to learn, or climb inside their head and think for them. As for access to education, thanks to information technology the cost of that is quickly dropping toward zero.

R&D: Internet was created by DARPA and CERN together. Space exploration achieved by governments worldwide, exclusively until recently which has had trickle down effects on other industries. Sometimes forced development of something highly important benefits everything.
Also, if you look at history, great empires, with relatively great qualities of life, have grown out of some forced existence of learning. The libraries and academies of Greece in the antiquity started all western ideas and technology.
The Royal Society was created by the English monarch - the British Empire and modern science were the result.

Debunked above.

What's NAP?

Non-Aggression Principle - a natural economic phenomenon, like the price mechanism of supply and demand, that happens as the result of balance of power - "everybody wants to rule the world, but nobody wants to die trying".


(I'm going to catch up with this thread... eventually...)

Edited by Alex Libman, 01 June 2010 - 07:35 AM.

[chris w]

R&D: Internet was created by DARPA and CERN together. Space exploration achieved by governments worldwide, exclusively until recently which has had trickle down effects on other industries. Sometimes forced development of something highly important benefits everything.
Also, if you look at history, great empires, with relatively great qualities of life, have grown out of some forced existence of learning. The libraries and academies of Greece in the antiquity started all western ideas and technology.
The Royal Society was created by the English monarch - the British Empire and modern science were the result.

Debunked above.

The thing is - without government space agencies we would not have gone to the moon when we did, as there would have been no economic incentive for privateers to build the rockets and fly there ( because - to get what from there ? ).

Edited by chris w, 01 June 2010 - 10:18 PM.

[rwac]

The thing is - without government space agencies we would not have gone to the moon when we did, as there would have been no economic incentive for privateers to build the rockets and fly there ( because - to get what from there ? ).

Thing is, the moon landing is great and all, but it was a bit premature, in the sense that it didn't lead to anything, there's no real next step there.

[captainbeefheart]

amusing stuff...

[RandomNoobie]

I am an anarcho-capitalist. I believe strongly in individual liberty and individual rights, the most fundamental of which is the right to own property. The state is naked violence, coercion; in a word, aggression. All of the worst events in the history of mankind, all of the most gruesome and vile attrocities have been committed by the state, or rather by individuals who have seized power within the state apparatus. I reject the idea of taxation and view it as theft and condemn morally all violence except that which occurs in self defense against violence towards person or property (be it your's or another's).

[captainbeefheart]

I have never understood how these anararicsts (be it communist or capitalist) never see there's so much more to do then simply 'smash the state', sure you do that but by merely smashing the state the state just grows into another guise, in this case giving even more 'freedom' to a small elite of people, even more so then now, who own the means of production, allowing them to create even bigger monopolies. Pleas stop trying to pretend the ideas are markets are sophiscistcated, there not there clearly dumb and clumsy and what has been discussed in this thread has no basis in reality and are based on misunderstandings and misconceptions. It's a philpshy based int 'pure rationality' which of course is an absurd approach to take in the first place because as smart as you people think they are within your little minds you don't know it all... I don't mean that as an insult, we all have tiny little heads in the grand scheme of things... You must look at what has been to understand what might happen int eh future. History doesn't repeat itself exactly, more like ovals! But blind relationally is very very flawed and that's what anarcho capitalism is...

[JLL]

Your post makes very little sense, but one comment anyway: monopolies are created by governments.

[eternaltraveler]

Blind rationality?

[EmbraceUnity]

http://www.treehugge...sufficiency.php

Alex, perhaps your efforts are making some effect.

Edited by progressive, 03 June 2010 - 12:58 PM.

[valkyrie_ice]

The thing is - without government space agencies we would not have gone to the moon when we did, as there would have been no economic incentive for privateers to build the rockets and fly there ( because - to get what from there ? ).

Thing is, the moon landing is great and all, but it was a bit premature, in the sense that it didn't lead to anything, there's no real next step there.

Miniaturization in electronics was driven and funded in large part by the need in the Space program for smaller lighter computers.

So your statement reflects little more than ignorance of the historical factors. Would miniaturization have come about eventually, yes. But it served a need at that point in time, and so was accelerated significantly.

Apollo had thousands of fallout effects if you are willing to trace them, Not the least of which was the education of an entire generation of youth in science and logic, many of who then went on to become the people responsible for our ever more rapid advance in technology.

No, there was no DIRECT primary benefit, and as Chris pointed out, therefore no private motive to go there. The SECONDARY BENEFITS changed our world forever.

PURE RESEARCH is like that. It may never have a DIRECT PRIMARY benefit, but often does have SECONDARY benefits which would never be found if left to a purely profit driven research motive.

[RighteousReason]

Alex, know of any AC oriented forums/chats?

[Cameron]

Your post makes very little sense, but one comment anyway: monopolies are created by governments.

Obviously not solely by government. Without limiting the freedom of corporations what is to stop first mover advantage from growing to the point it can absorb or destroy the few large competitors and from then on squash whatever small competition emerges? If a corporation starts in an extremely profitable product area like say the oil companies or guys like Microsoft, what's to stop them from using all that wealth to enter and squash competitors in other product areas? From what I've heard guys like Microsoft and Intel have almost had to give life support to competitors in their main areas to stop themselves from becoming monopolies.

If a company with 10s of billions in profit(in one area like software or oil) enters a service or product area with slim profits(supermarkets?) for those involved, their 10s of billions in pure profit can allow them to easily eclipse and squash all the producers or providers in this new area. Short of some sort of restriction, I cannot see what's to stop the inevitable from happening.

If such expansion yields control of just a few critical services like say transportation, utilities, to a corporation they can be used to heavily cripple any competition in whatever new market area they wish to enter.

"everybody wants to rule the world, but nobody wants to die trying".

That's what makes the transition into the post human world so interesting. The human flesh is weak, and a human can easily be injured or killed. But there are conceivable bodies that would be virtually impervious to all known weapons. When a swat team becomes akin to a group of mosquitoes? What happens?

[JLL]

Alex, know of any AC oriented forums/chats?

The mises.org discussion forum is pretty AC oriented.

[JLL]

Obviously not solely by government. Without limiting the freedom of corporations what is to stop first mover advantage from growing to the point it can absorb or destroy the few large competitors and from then on squash whatever small competition emerges?

Costs, basically. It's not as easy to just buy off all competition as you make it sound, and big businesses can be very inflexible. There's nothing to prevent new, smaller and more flexible competitors from popping up.

If a corporation starts in an extremely profitable product area like say the oil companies or guys like Microsoft, what's to stop them from using all that wealth to enter and squash competitors in other product areas? From what I've heard guys like Microsoft and Intel have almost had to give life support to competitors in their main areas to stop themselves from becoming monopolies.

Well, when you're sitting on oil and you see there's only one other competitor, and they want to buy your oil, do you sell it? I wouldn't. I would set my price a bit lower than the competitor and start making some serious money.

Microsoft is a terrible example for your case, because their monopoly position is based mostly on IP laws, which would not exist without the government. Microsoft is a great example of how governments create monopolies.

If a company with 10s of billions in profit(in one area like software or oil) enters a service or product area with slim profits(supermarkets?) for those involved, their 10s of billions in pure profit can allow them to easily eclipse and squash all the producers or providers in this new area. Short of some sort of restriction, I cannot see what's to stop the inevitable from happening.

So why do we have competing supermarkets? It's not because the government is there preventing big companies from buying smaller ones. Acquisitions happen all the time.

[Cameron]

Costs, basically. It's not as easy to just buy off all competition as you make it sound, and big businesses can be very inflexible. There's nothing to prevent new, smaller and more flexible competitors from popping up.

not easy in one instant, but over time those that coalesce can force others out of business and if they gain enough marketshare take predatory action on any small new company that emerges. And cost will indeed make it implausible for a large company to emerge out of the blue to compete with them without a vulnerable period of growth to get big.

Well, when you're sitting on oil and you see there's only one other competitor, and they want to buy your oil, do you sell it? I wouldn't. I would set my price a bit lower than the competitor and start making some serious money.

And you think you're eternal? The corporation is made up of people, get enough traitors inside and they will sell. Another possibility is if someone holds control of things like transportation, can't sell what you can't transport you'll be driven out of business. Hostile threats are also a possibility so that you're extorted in some way out of your business.

Microsoft is a terrible example for your case, because their monopoly position is based mostly on IP laws, which would not exist without the government. Microsoft is a great example of how governments create monopolies.

Unless you suppose people are going to be allowed to make and sell pirated copies for any software out in the open, I don't see how some sort of IP protection won't form. Is everyone going to go open source? Are movies, games, books, music all going to become free to pirate? Obviously these industries will use whatever power they have to impose restrictions, buy the pipes(isps) or utilize draconian drm and you'll hinder people ripping IP freely. Another alternative is to influence whatever private body is fighting crimes into labelling ip theft as crime.

So why do we have competing supermarkets? It's not because the government is there preventing big companies from buying smaller ones. Acquisitions happen all the time.

Probably because there are systems in place to stop serious abuses from going on. Locally at least there are price caps that can be put in place to control the price of products. Devoid of this possibility, what's to stop a major chain like say walmarts coming in and through the profits gained from throughout the country severely underpricing local supermarkets into oblivion, and after their death raising prices.

Many people have heard the stories of big chain pharmacies and superstores like walmart coming in and blitzing the local small companies into oblivion. You can't compete in advertising, in prices, basically in anything.


We know from the past that human civilization has in many places fallen under dictatorships, monarchies, etc. That is power has concentrated in human societies themselves. To imply that this can't happen to a market is simply implausible. Costs protect the market? Costs can't protect society itself from oppression and the concentration of power. And it does cost a lot in terms of followers and military might to take over and hold control of a nation.

Edited by Cameron, 06 June 2010 - 10:44 AM.

[Alex Libman]

I apologize for falling behind with this thread. I've made a stupid harebrained mistake of failing to notice that some parts of this forum are blocked from public view, including this thread, which means my efforts can fall down the memory hole at any time. This greatly reduced the amount of time I can permit myself to spend on this forum...

[JLL]

not easy in one instant, but over time those that coalesce can force others out of business and if they gain enough marketshare take predatory action on any small new company that emerges. And cost will indeed make it implausible for a large company to emerge out of the blue to compete with them without a vulnerable period of growth to get big.

If other people think like you, then won't they stop buying products from these predatory companies and support small businesses instead? And if they don't think like you, what's wrong with a monopoly?

Unless you suppose people are going to be allowed to make and sell pirated copies for any software out in the open, I don't see how some sort of IP protection won't form. Is everyone going to go open source? Are movies, games, books, music all going to become free to pirate? Obviously these industries will use whatever power they have to impose restrictions, buy the pipes(isps) or utilize draconian drm and you'll hinder people ripping IP freely. Another alternative is to influence whatever private body is fighting crimes into labelling ip theft as crime.

It is conceivable that in the absence of state-imposed IP laws, some companies will naturally make similar agreements with each other -- "if you make a movie based on our film script without our permission, you will be liable to pay us $20,000".

But I don't see how or why global IP laws would form. Why would consumers agree to that? People are already downloading movies, music, books, etc. illegally, which clearly shows that the average consumer is not so interested in following IP laws. The companies might not like this, but they would have to adapt and come up with new ways of making profits. Things like Spotify are going to be the future.

My guess is that not everyone is going to go open source. There is still an advantage to being the first on the market, and even if your encryption is cracked in a week, you still have that week before others copy your work. Still, businesses using draconian DRM are going to lose the fight eventually. World of Warcraft is a good example of how you can make money even in a world where software can be cracked in a matter of days (or hours).

Probably because there are systems in place to stop serious abuses from going on. Locally at least there are price caps that can be put in place to control the price of products. Devoid of this possibility, what's to stop a major chain like say walmarts coming in and through the profits gained from throughout the country severely underpricing local supermarkets into oblivion, and after their death raising prices.

But it is not a serious abuse to buy a smaller company. There are also countries where price caps are not used. Why is there not just one big walmart?

Many people have heard the stories of big chain pharmacies and superstores like walmart coming in and blitzing the local small companies into oblivion. You can't compete in advertising, in prices, basically in anything.

These are almost always a result of government regulation, which favours big corporations over small businesses. The reason that nice lady next door can't compete against Walmart in selling cookies is not because she doesn't have the money for advertising, it's because it's a big fucking hassle getting through all the bureaucracy and regulations.

We know from the past that human civilization has in many places fallen under dictatorships, monarchies, etc. That is power has concentrated in human societies themselves. To imply that this can't happen to a market is simply implausible. Costs protect the market? Costs can't protect society itself from oppression and the concentration of power. And it does cost a lot in terms of followers and military might to take over and hold control of a nation.

The difference between a dictator and a businessman is that a businessman can't force you to buy their product.

[captainbeefheart]

Your post makes very little sense, but one comment anyway: monopolies are created by governments.

and your comment confirms you don't understand so sorry I'm not being clear. But I'm not talking about Monopolies owned by the state nor an indivdules. I'm talking about work places run by works coperatives, with directly elected, accountable roles with any sort of authority thus tyrants can't exist like they do when a company or government gets to powerful like now. Libertarianism wouldn't solve this it really wouldn't.

Edited by captainbeefheart, 08 June 2010 - 02:17 PM.

[captainbeefheart]

I'll leave it there, I am becoming concerned that all the politics in Transmhumism really puts people off joining it. I can think of two real instances where it has, as it just seems to be some sort of Libertarian training camp. I wouldn't want to put people off such an important. And before anyone bangs on about freedom speech I'm not (nor could I) stop you from creating twenty threads a day about your nonsense I'm just making a point tis all...

[chris w]

Many people have heard the stories of big chain pharmacies and superstores like walmart coming in and blitzing the local small companies into oblivion. You can't compete in advertising, in prices, basically in anything.

These are almost always a result of government regulation, which favours big corporations over small businesses. The reason that nice lady next door can't compete against Walmart in selling cookies is not because she doesn't have the money for advertising, it's because it's a big fucking hassle getting through all the bureaucracy and regulations.

But even if it was a piece of cake, then it's not like she is all armed and ready against Goliath, is she ?

[JLL]

Many people have heard the stories of big chain pharmacies and superstores like walmart coming in and blitzing the local small companies into oblivion. You can't compete in advertising, in prices, basically in anything.

These are almost always a result of government regulation, which favours big corporations over small businesses. The reason that nice lady next door can't compete against Walmart in selling cookies is not because she doesn't have the money for advertising, it's because it's a big fucking hassle getting through all the bureaucracy and regulations.

But even if it was a piece of cake, then it's not like she is all armed and ready against Goliath, is she ?

I think the scenario you're picturing here is not something that actually happens in the real world. If what you say is true, then there should only be one big Walmart that sells everything, and whenever a small company tries to compete, the almighty Walmart buys it. Yet this is not what we see -- even in countries where this would be legal.

[Cameron]

If other people think like you, then won't they stop buying products from these predatory companies and support small businesses instead? And if they don't think like you, what's wrong with a monopoly?

I hate the current group of isps available locally, but that's what I've got. Since I value net access a lot, I'm willing to put up with paying for subpar service. IF there's only one game in town, and you value or need(water,electric utilities) the product, you've basically no choice.

As for monopolies, unless we happen upon a corporation with some moral, ethical and rational leadership, it is no good. Of course having the marketplace to itself could allow them to centralize R&D and probably reduce costs, while keeping quality high. But if they're not fit to have the market to themselves, they can grow complacent and reduce or eliminate R&D and reduce quality, raise prices and provide sub-par products.

Why would consumers agree to that?

Because a corporation is a far stronger entity than a mere human consumer. Their say is likely to be greater, in most any system, than even the many voices of many in a population. This is already so in many cases in many nations, that is why laws that go against fair use take root, and why copyright is continually extended. Most consumers probably don't want fair use to be effectively taken away or copyright to be extended indefinitely, but what they want matters little when the powerful choose otherwise.

World of Warcraft is a good example of how you can make money even in a world where software can be cracked in a matter of days (or hours).

WoW is still protected by IP laws, competitors can't create derivative or clone WoW hosting platforms. No one can commercialize an alternate platform running WoW.

There are also countries where price caps are not used. Why is there not just one big walmart?

In the past communication technology was not sufficient for even empires to spread too far. The roman empire was about at the limits, iirc from what I've heard. It's only been in the last few centuries when technology has progressed enough, and there's been continual progress on communication and manufacturing technology.

In this time frame corporations have grown and expanded into the global marketplace, some attaining virtual monopolies in multiple nations. In many markets corporations have gone from being many, to few, to little(oligopolies) or one(monopolies).

What I mean to say is that not enough time has passed for a corporation with a global monopoly that spans multiple areas to occur(as far as I know). As the power of corporations continue to grow, their ability to pressure fragmented governments into submission grows.

Already a corporation often has more protection against the law than the average citizen. Already many complain about the reality of corporations often having more say, than voters, in legislation through their lobbies and campaign contributions. As time goes on, the laws will likely continue to go more and more towards the side of the strong(corporations). Following the current trajectories it seems that if one were to extrapolate, were no impediment to occur, power will eventually transition in full from governments to multinational corporations.

These are almost always a result of government regulation, which favors big corporations over small businesses. The reason that nice lady next door can't compete against Walmart in selling cookies is not because she doesn't have the money for advertising, it's because it's a big fucking hassle getting through all the bureaucracy and regulations.

Are you suggesting that devoid regulation and bureaucracy she would be able to? A big chain can A.) Advertise hugely and paint her in a negative light B.)Provide substantially lower prices, C.) more variety, D.)higher availability of any particular product, E.) and additional services all in one place. Why do you think local small businesses often fight, tooth and nail, the right of big business to gain a local establishment? I believe it simply because they know they can't compete.

Further a big chain can learn of the suppliers of the small business, and extort them into stopping business with the smaller entity or raising their prices. It can offer suppliers large incentives for doing so or large penalties for refusing.

The difference between a dictator and a businessman is that a businessman can't force you to buy their product.

Business Entities that lie outside the law, like the Mob, can actually force you to buy what they're selling... their so-called protection.

Once corporations gain absolute power over the law, their ways will be the law of the land. And those who hold the law in the palm of their hands, their will is enforceable by force.

I think the scenario you're picturing here is not something that actually happens in the real world. If what you say is true, then there should only be one big Walmart that sells everything, and whenever a small company tries to compete, the almighty Walmart buys it. Yet this is not what we see -- even in countries where this would be legal.

I believe there's not been enough time with a modern economy and communications infrastructure for this to take place in those places where it's not happened yet.

But the big corporations squashing and killing all smaller ones has happened time and again. Even big competitors like AMD and APPLE have at times been practically at death's door at the hands of giants like MS and INTEL. Intel is suggested to've even extorted corporations out of buying AMD products, i think with incentives and threats, iirc(and at a time when AMD had a vastly superior product). Apple and AMD, iirc, were even given forms of life support to keep a competitor around and stop the obvious monopoly law problems that would ensue should these two disappear.

Even now NVIDIA's superior graphics technology is being hindered by INTEL's efforts in the low cost graphics arena.

The power of monopolies to influence decisions is seen by the fact that even open source free software has problems gaining a hold in many areas. That a high quality and sometimes superior FREE product has a problem gaining hold, is evidence of the massive power of many monopolies through marketing, incentives and penalties.

Right now for example the issue of software patents, patentabsurdity(good free short documentary on the issue), is an area were the law is giving massive powers to corporations. The large corporations gaining patent portfolios that can be used to litigate into submission or oblivion any smaller corporation. Devoid of such patents, the larger corporations could very well steal any unique idea that might give a small corporation an edge, but at least there would be a fighting chance.

Edited by Cameron, 09 June 2010 - 03:11 PM.

[valkyrie_ice]

Alright. I am issuing a challenge to EVERYONE, regardless of political beliefs.

http://ieet.org/arch...IGHTSTUNNEL.PDF

Regardless of your economic theories, regardless of if you are a rep or dem, regardless of even if you believe we will ever have a singularity or not READ THIS BOOK.

THIS MEANS YOU ALEX, JLL, PROGRESSIVE, MIND, CAMERON, BOBDRAKE, NINER, and everyone else who is remotely concerned about the future. I would even say I would recommend it as required reading for anyone interested in immortality at all.