A few questions for AC's

[ShakeZula06]

Read again:

"lol. it's the defintion of a territorial monopolist."

Your reply indicates you don't know what a territorial monopolist is. Within it's territory it has a monopoly on certain services.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if one agrees with the premise that anti-trust legislation is counter-productive (which I agree with in most cases), that doesnt result in any extra benefits under AC. Anti-trust legislation can be abandoned in other economic structures as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Qui bono

[Copernicus]

GMTA

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if one agrees with the premise that anti-trust legislation is counter-productive (which I agree with in most cases), that doesnt result in any extra benefits under AC. Anti-trust legislation can be abandoned in other economic structures as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, there would be no extra benefit under AC. You just wouldn't have the drag caused by anti-trust legislation.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if one agrees with the premise that anti-trust legislation is counter-productive (which I agree with in most cases), that doesnt result in any extra benefits under AC. Anti-trust legislation can be abandoned in other economic structures as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Qui bono

[/ QUOTE ]

To the consumers/customers/citizens benefit ultimately. Or are you implying that the lack of anti-trust actions in AC are somehow less subject to self dealing than in other capitalist structures?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AC is simply individuals voluntarily solving problems without the use of a coercize territorial monoplist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US govt isn't a territorial monopolist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's quite an intellectual accomplishment right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should respond to the point he made rather than just insulting him.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you want to live on a territory already owned by one group of peopple does not mean there are no competitors or that you couldn't buy your own territory if you could meet the price.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they dont have complete monopoly over the entire world, but the costs associated with moving make it near impossible to leave the area you happened to be born in. And if you are supporting the idea that the more power people have to move between states the better, then you are essentially an ACist. Less monopoly would be better, no?

[Borodog]

Have you even read the FAQ?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AC is simply individuals voluntarily solving problems without the use of a coercize territorial monoplist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US govt isn't a territorial monopolist.

There are over 200 countries around the world owned by different groups of people, and countless smaller territories owned by individuals or non-govt entities. And many territories still not owned at all (albeit, you'll need to dress very warm.)

Just because you want to live on a territory already owned by one group of peopple does not mean there are no competitors or that you couldn't buy your own territory if you could meet the price.

To say the govt is a territorial monopolist because you can't own the land you happen to want to live on individually is the same as saying that Walmart is a monopolist because I want to live where Walmart has a parking lot and they won't sell it to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't understanding the terminology in question.

Governments are indeed territorial monopolists, by definition. The question that you should be asking is, "Territorial monopolist of what?", with the answer being "justice and taxation."

It doesn't have anything to do with owning land.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you even read the FAQ?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one reads that goddamn thing.