Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A system that does not depend on political allocation of resources and rewards. I.e., a system without politics. It's called the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

A system with immense concentrations of preexisting wealth cannot be the "free market" you fantasize about.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not. The free market that libertarians fantasize about would perpetually have concentrations of "preexisting" wealth.

Unless you're confusing "free" to make/buy/sell/trade/etc. with the means or ability to do so.

[Poofler]

It's usually a boneheaded idea (predatory pricing). But, it has worked in the airline industry before. Of course, it's just a form of competition.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
Mempho, you seem to be confusing natural barriers to entry (ie. sufficient financial backing) to unnatural barriers (ie. government-placed barriers).

And your use of the terms "predatory pricing" indicate a misunderstanding of how markets work. Here's an article about why this type of strategy is irrational. I really wish I could find John McGee's article on Standard Oil that put to rest the myth of predatory pricing in Standard's case, but all I find are cites to it. I did find it in my college library so a library might have more luck there. Dominick Armentano also has a book called Antitrust and Monopoly that may be worth checking out. You'll see that a lot of your fears about monopolies and collusion just don't bear out in the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you give me the general concept of it? The oil companies in general are often targets and especially Standard...not to mention that the Rockefellers are one of the central names in those conspiracy theories that cite subversion of the government through consolidated power.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A system that does not depend on political allocation of resources and rewards. I.e., a system without politics. It's called the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

A system with immense concentrations of preexisting wealth cannot be the "free market" you fantasize about.

[/ QUOTE ]

On an average day, how much time would you say you spend worrying "What are the Billionaires doing right now?"

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A system that does not depend on political allocation of resources and rewards. I.e., a system without politics. It's called the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

A system with immense concentrations of preexisting wealth cannot be the "free market" you fantasize about.

[/ QUOTE ]

On an average day, how much time would you say you spend worrying "What are the Billionaires doing right now?"

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is a lot.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Government is built on a foundation of violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you live in a world of bunnies and cotton candy where violence doesn't exist?

It's a violent world. We, the People, choose to be prepared.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: "Violence already exists so there's nothing wrong with supporting it."

Seems logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

New and improved translation: "Violence exists, therefore we must defend ourselves."

[/ QUOTE ]

Has anyone suggested that defending yourself is a bad idea?

Your plan for "defending yourself" begins with aggression against others.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So, monopoly is against the law in AC? Or just violent ones?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the same sense that perpetual motion machines are against the law.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How do we prevent someone from ending up "with all the chips" so that the truly great ideas that increase everyone's slice of the pie come to the forefront? This is what keeps me from being AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the analogy to "chips" is false. In AC, and with capitalism in general, when someone accumulates "chips", they do not come from someone else, they are newly created chips. Sure, you could say that the rich get a larger share of the newly created chips than others, but they are still new chips, not just the same chips changing hands like with poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this misses the point. Yes, everyone is better off in regards to material possessions but that does not mean that the level of relative economic freedom is any better. In fact, it could be much worse. You could, in fact, have much more and much less at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]
My reply was to a concern about someone accumulating "chips". That, in itself does not equal reduced economic freedom. Of course someone could use their wealth to oppress others. A government (or institution) theoretically can exist only to protect freedom by outlawing the initiation of force and fraud, without ever engaging in the initiation of force itself.

I can't speak for ACists, but I believe they are not opposed to a private institution existing for this purpose, in which case this institution would be equivalent to a libertarian government.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
It's usually a boneheaded idea (predatory pricing). But, it has worked in the airline industry before. Of course, it's just a form of competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, even the post-regulation airline industry is heavily regulated, and the major carriers are subsidized out the wazoo.

Southwest has managed to prosper despite government working directly against it (cf. wright amendment).

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if you grant me these assumptions, do you not believe that the large carriers would engage in predatory pricing on the routes that I run in order to eliminate the threat I pose with a superior idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

And if your idea is really that much better you will still be able to undercut them. They can't lose money forever.